GIFT    OF 
JANE  K.SATHER 


? 

THE 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


AND 


SLAVERY. 


A  HISTORICAL  SURVEY  OF  THE  RELATION  OF  THE 
EARLY  METHODISTS   TO   SLAVERY. 


BY 

DANIEL   DEVINNE, 

OF    THE    NEW-YORK    EAST    CONFERENCE. 


NEW-YORK: 

FRANCIS    HART,    G3    CORTLANDT    STREET. 
1857. 


' 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I PAGE  9. 

RISE     OF     MODERN     SLAVERY. 

Its  Introduction  into  America — Its  Collision  with  Christianity — Plan  of  Primitive 
Emancipation — Slavery  sought  Refuge  in  the  Church — Ecclesiastical  Decision. 

CHAPTER  II PAGE  11. 

INTRODUCTION    OF    SLAVERY    IN    THE    METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH. 

First  Members  Poor — Xo  Slaves — Slavery  came  in  without  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  "Wes 
ley  or  of  Mr.  Asbury — During  the  Revolution — Through  the  Separated  Conference 
in  Virginia — First  efforts  to  extirpate  it  1780— Declaration  of  Sentiment — Prohibi 
tory  Law — Exceptions — A  moral  and  real  Emancipation  always  anticipated. 

CHAPTER  III PAGE  20. 

ORGANIZATION     OF     THE     METHODIST     EPISCOPAL     CHURCH. 
HER     CONSTITUTION      NO  N -SLA  V  EHO  LDI  N  G. 

History  of  the  Rule  on  Slavery — In  what  her  Constitution  consists — Main  Question 
stated — Terms  Defined — Design  of  the  Rule— Subject  treated  Philologically — Ethi 
cally — Historically. 

CHAPTER  IV PAGE  28. 

THE     RULE     CONSIDERED     PHILOLOGICALLY. 

Enslaving — Its  Grammatical  Meaning — Rule  of  Interpretation — Corroborative  Evi 
dence — How  it  was  Understood  by  our  Founders — Only  Consistent  View  of  the  Rule. 

CHAPTER  V PAGE  34. 

THE  RULE  CONSIDERED  ETHICALLY  OR  MORALLY. 

Articles  of  Religion  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  our  Church — Xo  Ecclesiastical  Rule 
to  be  interpreted  in  opposition  to  them — XTo  need  of  a  change  in  the  General  Rules 
to  exclude  Slavery — The  Requisition  for  it  is  already  in  the  Constitution — Slavery 
forbidden  in  detail — So  understood  by  our  Founders — Xo  Special  Law  in  the  Bible 
to  sustain  Slavery— The  Law  of  Reciprocity  applies  to  Slaves— What  Christianity 
teaches  in  the  premises. 

CHAPTER  VI PAGE  41. 

THE     RULE     CONSIDERED     HISTORICALLY. 

^Historical  Circumstances  Xecessary  to  a  Right  Exposition— Spirit  of  the  Times  when 
the  Rule  was  Instituted— Principles  of  Freedom  Predominant— Congress  of  1774 — 
Statesmen — Jefferson — Virginia — Georgia — Presbyterians — Baptists — If  the  Metho 
dists  had  tolerated  Slavery  they  would  have  been  behind  all  others. 


CHAPTER  VII PAGE  46. 

SUSPENSION. 

Prohibitory  Rule — Its  Exceptions — Its  Suspensions — Morally  it  was  not  Suspended — 
Its  Enforcement  was  only  carrying  out  the  Common  Law  of  God's  Government 
— What  led  to  the  Suspension — Its  Effects  on  the  Church — What  the  Slave  lost  by 
it — In  many  Cases  it  was  enforced — At  the  South,  the  Adjustment  of  what  was 
Right  left  to  the  Administrator  and  the  Conscience  of  the  Master. 

CHAPTER  VIII PAGE  54. 

COLLATERAL     EVIDENCE    OF     NON  -CO  NSTITUTION  AL    SLAVEHOLDI  NG. 

Efforts  to  Extirpate — Never  acquiesced  in  Slaveholding — Preached  agoinst  it — Opposi 
tion — Dr.  Coke — Rev.  J.  Everett — Rev.  G.  Dougherty — Mobbed  in  Charleston — Fell 
a  Martyr — Bishop  Asbury's  Testimony — Emancipations — Methodists  fled  to  Ohio — 
Sayle — Axley — Rev.  Freeborn  Garretson— His  Plan  of  Emancipation. 

CHAPTER  IX PAGE  66. 

POLITICAL     AND     ECCLESIASTICAL     ACTION     AGAINST    SLAVERY. 

Petitions  to  the  State  Legislatures — Gen.  Washington — Address  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1796  Circulated — Wesley's  Thoughts  on  Slavery — United  Effort — 
During  which  the  Church  prospers — Adverse  Influences — Cotton  Gin — Purchase  of 
Louisiana. 

CHAPTER  X PAGE  72. 

SUCCESS     OF     FIRST     EFFORTS     TO     EXTIRPATE     SLAVERY. 

Great  Revival  of  Religion  among  the  Colored  People,  1780-1800 — Great  Additions  to 
the  Church — Unprecedented  Emancipation — Preachers  try  to  bring  Master  and.  Slave 
under  the  same  Rule — Failed — Slavery  in  the  Primitive  Church  and  in  Ours  Con 
trasted — Master's  Duty — Slave's  Duty — Primitive  Church  had  but  One  Law  for  Both 
— In  Effect  we  have  Two — Unwritten  Laws  of  Slavery  carried  out  in  onr  Church — 
They  Sanction  it — They  more  than  Neutralize  all  Written  Testimony  against  it. 


CHAPTER  XI PAGE  85. 

FELLOWSHIP     WITH     SLAVHOLDERS. 

The  Church  the  embodiment  of  Christianity — Two  Ways  to  sustain  an  Evil — The 
Scriptural  Rule— The  Covetous— The  Railer— The  Extortioner — Moral  Heresies — 
Nothing  cohesive  in  Slavery — It  can  not  stand  without  outward  support. 

CHAPTER  XII PAGE  91. 

FUTURE     ACTION     OF     THE     CHURCH. 

Undo  what  has  been  done  Unconstitutionally — Repeal  the  Chapter  on  Slavery — No 
change  of  the  General  Rule  necessary — The  Requisition  to  Exclude  Slavery  is  in  the 
Constitution  of  our  Church  already — General  Conference  should  Re-affirm  the  Declar 
ation  of  1780 — Give  a  Judicial  Decision  in  regard  to  the  Meaning  of  the  Rule — Pro 
hibit  the  Observance  of  the  Unwritten  Laws  of  Slavery  in  the  Administration  of  the 
Church — Allow  to  Every  Member  the  Right  of  Suit — Right  of  Testimony — Recogni 
tion  of  Marriage — To  require  all  Members,  Bond  or  Free,  to  observe  the  Laws  of 
Christianity,  whether  in  accordance  with  the  Slave  Laws  or  not. 


INTRODUCTION. 

IN  this  historical  survey,  I  purpose  to  prove  that  the  Methodist  Epis 
copal  Church  was  founded  on  a  non  slaveholding  basis.  That  it  never 
•was  the  intention  of  her  founders  that  Slavery  should  have  been 
continued  in  her  communion  ;  and  that  all  the  slaveholding  which  has 
ever  been  in  our  Church,  has  been  in  contravention  to  the  spirit  and 
design  of  her  organic  law. 

In  doing  this,  I  shall  mainly  depend  on  documentary  testimony.  Oral 
testimony  is  about  wholly  lost.  The  reaction  which  has  been  setting 
back  upon  our  Church  for  the  last  thirty-five  years,  has  been  inimical  to 
its  transmission.  A  few  items,  however,  have  been  preserved.  During 
several  years'  residence  in  the  South,  and  while  in  charge  of  four  large 
circuits,  the  author  has  not  only  seen  the  working  of  the  slave  system, 
but  has  been  enabled  to  glean  from  those  of  a  former  generation,  some 
precious  items  of  our  early  history,  in  regard  to  Slavery. 

The  object  of  this  composition  is  a  defence  of  our  fathers,  and  of  the 
Church  which  they  founded,  against  the  reproach  which  has  been  cast 
upon  both,  not  only  by  their  open  enemies,  but  also  by  their  reputed  but 
mistaken  sons — especially  that  which  has  been  put  forth  in  many  of  the 
speeches  of  the  last  general  conference.  For  as  Christians,  disciples  of 
John  Wesley,  as  American  Methodists,  we  feel  dishonored  before  our 
European  brethren,  and  in  sight  of  the  civilized  world,  that  the  Church 
of  our  early  choice,  should  be  stigmatized  as  "  constitutionally,  historically 
and  administratively  a  Slaveholding  Church."  We  readily  acknowledge 
that  the  inexplicable  or  contradictory  expletive  "  though  anti  Slavery," 
is  as  often  asserted,  but  what  it  means  in  this  connection  we  cannot  tell. 

We  deplore  the  present  position  of  our  Church ;  and  in  view  of  all 
the  ground,  having  traveled  fifteen  thousand  miles  in  Slaveholding  States ; 
having  visited,  perhaps,  a  thousand  plantations ;  and  having  conversed 
freely  with  Methodist  slaves  and  slaveholders,  we  must  here  record  our 
solemn  and  religious  testimony,  that  in  our  opinion,  the  influence  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  administered  for  the  last  thirty  years, 
has  been  unfavorable  to  the  emancipation  of  Slavery,  either  in  our 
Church,  or  in  our  country.  For  we  fully  believe,  that  "  the  plea  of  neces- 


Vlll 

sity — the  plea  of  certain  circumstances,"  and  other  excuses  for  the 
continuance  of  Slavery  in  the  Church,  have  done  vastly  more  to  uphold 
this  enormous  evil  amongst  us,  than  any  direct  advocacy  of  it  could 
have  possibly  done.  And  we  say  this  in  sorrow,  for  we  would  not 
unnecessarily  utter  one  word  in  opposition  to  the  expressed  opinions  of 
our  chief  ministers,  whose  judgment,  in  all  other  respects,  we  highly 
appreciate. 

But  is  there  not  a  cause  ?  Our  connection  with  Slavery  is  repelling 
thousands  from  our  Church,  and  it  is  continually  insulting  the  moral  sense 
of  hundreds  of  thousands,  who,  otherwise,  would  wait  on  our  ministry. 
Slavery,  at  this  moment,  is  forcing  its  way  over  the  fairest  portions  of  our 
country ;  it  is  attempting  through  the  Supreme  Court  to  nationalize  and 
legalize  itself  everywhere ;  it  is  putting  forth  strenuous  efforts  to  revive 
the  Foreign  Slave  Trade,  and  also  to  strike  down  the  liberty  of  the  Press, 
and  the  freedom  of  the  Pulpit.  The  sword  is  coming  upon  us,  or  the 
"African  flood,"  as  Bishop  Asbury  seventy  years'  ago  denominated  the 
retributive  justice  of  God  against  Slavery.  And  all  the  while  we  are 
silent — and  the  silence  in  many  places  is  deemed  a  virtue.  "  The  longer 
the  better."  But  is  this  wise  I  Is  it  the  more  excellent  way  1  Will  it 
lessen  the  penalty  which  will  surely  be  executed  upon  those  who  oppress 
the  stranger  and  rob  the  hireling  of  his  wages  1 

With  many  others,  we  had  supposed  that  the  division  of  1844  would 
have  changed  our  policy  on  the  moral  question  of  Slavery.  But  we 
have  been  disappointed.  That  great  disruption  was  not  on  moral  grounds. 
The  moral  question  of  Slavery  is  yet  to  be  decided.  In  view  of  this 
decision,  the  author  has  felt  it  his  duty  to  set  forth  his  testimony,  and 
thus  to  address  his  brethren,  that  they  may  bring  back  our  beloved  Church 
to  the  basis  on  which  she  was  at  first  founded.  As  much  as  ever,  he  still 
loves  the  Church  of  his  early  choice,  in  whose  blessed  communion  he  has 
passed  nearly  fifty  happy  years,  and  in  whose  fellowship  he  still  hopes 
to  continue  till  he  dies. 

WEST  MORRISANIA,  ) 
AUG.  12,  1857.      J 


CHAPTER  1. 


RISE     OF     MODERN     SLAVERY. 


ITS  INTRODUCTION  INTO  AMERICA — ITS  COLLISION  WITH  CHRISTIANITY — PLAN 
OF  PRIMITIVE  EMANCIPATION  —  SLAVERY  SOUGHT  REFUGE  IN  THE  CHURCH  — 
ECCLESIASTICAL  DECISION. 


THE  Modern  Slave  Trade  commenced  its  operations  in  the  sixteenth 
century  ;  and  within  one  hundred-  and  fifty  years  from  that  period 
it  imported  1,500,000  slaves  into  North  America  and  the  West 
Indies.  With  its  rise  at  this  time,  a  new  difficulty  was  originated 
in  the  Church : — It  was  the  first  instance  on  record  in  which  Slavery 
was  attempted  to  be  ingrafted  upon  an  already  existing  Christian 
community. 

In  former  times  and  in  heathen  countries,  Christianity  had  battled 
with  Slavery,  and  had  achieved  two  splendid  victories.  On  those 
occasions  her  course  was  clear.  The  Gospel  which  was  to  go  to  all, 
was,  under  the  apostolic  administration,  intended  for  the  benefit  of 
all,  whether  they  were  bond  or  free.  The  Primitive  Church,  like 
the  Jewish,  had  in  it  but  "  one  law  for  the  home  born  and  the 
stranger,"  and  but  one  administration  for  all  her  members:  the 
principles  of  which  were  equality — not  however  of  condition,  for 
the  world  is  made  of  variety — but  an  equality,  of  right,  in  the  priv 
ileges  and  immunities  of  the  new  relation. 

But  when  Slavery  in  our  country,  as  an  institution,  was  to  be 
ingrafted  upon  Christianity,  it  was  soon  found  that  the  one  law 
principle,  the  one  administration,  and  "  the  giving  of  that  which 
was  just  and  equal,"  would  not  suit  the  respective  classes.  They 
could  not  be  applied  to  them  in  the  relation  of  master  and  slave. 
And  thus  the  slaveholding  proprietors  in  the  new  colonies  were 
involved  in  difficulties. 

For  at  this  period  there  were  many  Christians  who  supposed  that 
baptism  imparted,  somehow,  an  impersonation  of  Christ,  and  that, 
consequently,  the  degradation  of  Slavery  was  inconsistent  with  the 
dignity  of  the  Christian.  This  notion,  although  it  originated  in  the 
Church  of  Home,  had  great  influence  with  the  Churchmen  of  Vir 
ginia  and  the  Carolinas.  And  it  brought  with  it  the  following 
serious  difficulty : — 

That  the  negro  must  either  remain  without  the  benefits  of  Christian 
ity,  or  he  must  be  admitted  to  emancipation.  The  demands 
of  avarice,  however,  were  strong  and  active,  and  some  of  the  Colo- 


10  -•'.'„       m&.QfjMQffa™  Sl'avery. 

nial  Legislatures  yentu;;e.d  to  decree  that  baptism  and  Slavery  were 
not  neces^rityincdasfetefct.  *  And  In  this  opinion  Yorke  and  Talbot, 
the  crown  lawyers  of  the  motner  country,  concurred.  But  the  de 
cision  was  only  that  of  secular  men,  and  it  could  not  quiet  the 
conscience. 

The  question  was  then  referred  to  the  Church ;  and  Gordon, 
Bishop  of  London,  pronounced  ex  cathedra,  that  "  the  embracing 
of  the  Gospel  did  riot  make  the  least  alteration  in  civil  property." 
This  decree,  thus  vaguely  worded,  was  at  once  received  as  an 
ecclesiastical  sanction  for  Slavery  and  the  Slave  Trade.  "Authority," 
says  Locke,  "  keeps  in  ignorance  and  error  more  people  than  all 
other  causes."  Thus  it  turned  out,  that  Slavery,  driven  out  by 
conscience  and  the  common  sense  of  uninterested  men,  sought  a 
refuge  in  the  Bible.  And  from  that  day  to  the  present,  it  has  ever 
made  the  false  or  equivocal  interpretations  of  ministers  and  of 
churches  its  main  support — its  chief  bulwark«of  defense. 

In  passing,  it  is  really  worthy  of  notice,  that  after  this  decision 
and  the  revival  of  modern  Slavery,  nearly  all  subsequent  com 
mentators  on  the  Scriptures  have  expounded  those  passages  in  the 
Bible  referring  to  servitude  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that  of 
their  predecessors.  Most  of  them  seem  to  have  seen  every  thing 
through  the  haze  or  medium  of  Slavery.  Thus  it  has  resulted,  that 
this  "  complicated  crime,"  as  John  Wesley  and  Bishop  Asbury  have 
called  it,  has  so  long  nestled  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  And 
there  it  will  ever  continue,  until  the  true  exposition  of*  God's 
"Word  is  set  forth  and  applied  to  it.  For  we  will  never  be  better 
than  our  Bibles.  And  while  Slavery  "  nnder  any  circumstances  " 
is  supposed  to  be  allowed  in  the  Bible,  it  will  be  perpetuated  both 
in  the  Church  and  in  the  State.  But  the  truth  is  now  destroying 
this  "  complicated  villainy "  "  by  the  brightness  of  his  coming." 
This  fancied  asylum  for  Slavery  in  God's  Word  will  yet  be  its 
sepulcher.  Its  fancied  city  of  refuge  in  the  Church,  will  soon  be 
the  city  of  its  destruction. 


CHAPTER  II. 


INTRODUCTION     OF     SLAVERY     IN     THE     METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL     CHURCH. 


FIRST  MEMBERS  POOR  —  No  SLAVES  —  SLAVERY  CAME  IN  WITHOUT  THE  KNOWL 
EDGE  OF  MR.  WESLEY  OR  OF  MR.  ASBURY  —  DURING  THE  REVOLUTION  — 
THROUGH  THE  SEPARATED  CONFERENCE  IN  VIRGINIA  —  FIRST  EFFORTS  TO 

EXTIRPATE*  IT  1780 DECLARATION  OF  SENTIMENT PROHIBITORY  LAW 

EXCEPTIONS — A  MORAL  AND  REAL  EMANCIPATION  ALWAYS  ANTICIPATED. 


THE  Emerald  Isle,  which  has  sent  from  her  shores  more  soldiers 
to  foreign  armies,  and  more  Romanist  Priests,  and  more  Gospel 
ministers  than  any  other  portion  of  Christendom  of  equal  size  and 
population,  was  the  country  honored  by  planting  the  two  first  Meth 
odist  societies  in  America.  But  soon  after,  John  Wesley,  whose 
parish  was  the  world,  sent  over  regular  itinerants  to  establish  and 
carry  out  the  work.  Like  the  primitive  apostles,  they  began  their 
work  in  the  most  humble  manner,  and  generally  among  the  poorer 
classes.  Their  first  societies  were,  perhaps,  altogether  composed  of 
those  whose  moderate  circumstances  kept  them  wholly  from  the 
least  participation  in  Slavery. 

The  precise  time  and  manner  in  which  Slavery  found  its  way  into 
our  Church,  cannot,  at  this  period,  be  very  satisfactorily  ascertained. 
But  they  do  the  greatest  injustice  and  dishonor  to  the  head  and 
heart  of  John  Wesley,  who  assert  that  it  was  with  his  knowledge 
and  approbation.  Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  truth.  Previous 
to  the  first  conference  in  1773,  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  have  exerted 
much  influence  over  these  infant  societies,  being  himself  more  than 
three  thousand  miles  from  them,  and  they,  in  general,  composed  of 
only  a  few  individuals  in  a  place,  and  scattered  over  the  immense 
territory  of  the  provinces.  And  in  the  year  preceding  the  com 
mencement  of  the  revolutionary  war,  nearly  all  amicable  communi 
cation  was  cut  off  between  the  two  .countries.  Nor  can  we  find, 
during  this  period,  one  word  in  reference  to  the  existence  of  Slavery 
in  the  American  societies,  either  in  his  writings,  or  in  those  of  any 
of  his  preachers ;  so  that  it  is  wholly  begging  the  question  to  assert 
that  there  was  any  Slavery  in  the  Methodist  societies  before  the 
Revolution,  much  less  that  it  was  there  with  his  knowledge  and 
approbation. 

From  all  the  circumstances  in  the  case,  it  must  be  evident  that 
Slavery  found  its  way  into  the  Methodist  societies  not  only  without 


12  Introduction  of  Slavery 

the  knowledge  of  John  Wesley,  but  even  that  of  his  assistant, 
Francis  Asbury.  For  during  the  seven  years  of  the  revolutionary 
war,  all  friendly  intercourse  between  the  two  countries  had 
ceased ;  and  in  1778,  all  the  English  preachers  had  returned  to  the 
mother  country,  except  Mr.  Asbury ;  and  he,  it  is  well  known,  was 
confined  mostly  to  the  small  State  of  Delaware ;  so  that  by  these 
events,  even  his  advice  and  control  were  almost  wholly  lost  to  the 
rising  societies.  Consequently,  the  extension  of  the  cause  and  the 
founding  of  societies  were  committed  to  young  and  inexperienced 
men,  most  of  whom  had,  as  yet,  been  taught  the  way  of  the  Lord 
but  very  imperfectly.  For  in  this  great  revival  of  religion,  some, 
almost  immediately  on  their  conversion,  were  sent,  not  only  to 
preach,  but  to  found  churches,  receive  members  and  administer — 
except  the  ordinances — the  entire  discipline.  Almost  all  of  these 
young  preachers  had  been  also  born  and  raised  in  the  midst  of 
Slavery,  and,  with  the  Eev.  Freeborn  Garrettson,  had  only  an  im 
perfect  idea  that  Slavery  was  wrong.  They  had  "  never  read  a  book 
on  the  subject,  nor  had  they  reflected  much  upon  it." 

The  forty-eight  preachers  who  had  been  received  into  the  itinerancy 
during  the  war,  belonged  almost  exclusively  to  this  class.  All  the 
conferences  which  were  held  from  1776  to  1787  were  held  in  what 
are  now  denominated  the  slaveholding  states.  So  entirely  was  early 
Methodism  confined  to  this  section  of  our  country,  that  from  1777  to 
1783  there  was  not  one  appointment  of  a  preacher  north  of  some  parts 
of  New- Jersey ;  and  out  of  a  membership  of  about  14,000,  as  re 
ported  at  the  conference  of  the  latter  year,  only  about  2,000  resided 
in  what  are  now  called  the  free  states.  And  further,  in  1779,  mainly 
on  account  of  the  ordinances,  the  more  southern  preachers,  amount 
ing  to  far  more  than  one-half  of  the  entire  body,  seceded,  holding 
a  separate  conference  in  Fluvanna,  in  Virginia ;  while  Mr.  Asbury 
held  one  consisting  of  only  seventeen  preachers,  in  Kent  county, 
state  of  Delaware.  Each  conference  passed  its  own  resolutions, 
stationed  its  preachers,  and  exercised  discipline  over  their  respective 
societies.  This  separation  continued  during  the  seventh  and  eighth 
conferences,  or  parts  of  1779-80.  And,  although  in  May  of  the 
latter  year,  a  reconciliation  took  place,  so  far  as  to  suspend  the  ordi 
nances,  and  admit  Mr.  Asbury  into  the  seceding  conference,  yet  the 
two  bodies  did  not  meet  at  the  same  time  and  place  until  the  year 
1784-.  And  even  during  this  interval,  there  is  sufficient  evidence 
that  the  administration  of  the  general  assistant  was  received  with 
considerable  caution. 

In  1779,  when  the  question  was  asked,  "  Who  of  the  preachers 
are  willing  to  take  the  stations  this  conference  shall  place  them  in,  and 
continue  till  the  next  year  ?" — out  of  thirty-two  members  of  which 
the  whole  conference  was  composed,  sixteen  only  replied  in  the 
affirmative.  Those  who  did  not,  held  a  separate  conference  in 
Virginia. 

But  it  was  when  Mr.  Asbury  met  the  two  conferences  in  one 
body,  for  the  first  time,  that  we  heard  anything  on  the  subject 


In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  13 

of  Slavery.  The  fair  probability  then  is,  that  Slavery  had  been 
introduced  into  the  Methodist  societies  by  this  separated  conference 
in  Virginia  ;  and  that  when  the  preachers  came  back,  placing  them 
selves  again  under  the  supervision  of  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  conference 
of  Baltimore,  that  they  brought,  of  course,  their  members  with  them 
— some  of  whom  had  been,  already,  received  as  slaveholders. 

This  great  evil,  then,  having  been  admitted  in  this  way  into  the 
Church,  the. entire  conference  of  1780  took  immediate  measures  to 
extirpate  the  mere  sprinkling  of  it,  which  had  come  into  her  com 
munion,  and  also,  wholly  to  prevent  its  further  introduction.  And 
for  this  purpose,  they  sent  forth  to  the  infant  societies  and  to  the 
world,  that  noble  Declaration  against  Slavery,  which  we  shall  soon 
adduce,  and  which  should  ever  be  regarded  as  the  only  clue  to  the 
right  interpretation  of  all  their  subsequent  rules  and  measures  on 
this  question  of  Slavery. 

But  before  we  present  it,  it  seems  proper  to  review  the  whole 
ground,  that  we  may  have  a  right  appreciation  of  the  true  import 
of  that  Declaration.  It  is  acknowledged,  that,  to  the  early  Meth 
odists,  John  Wesley  was  their  great  prototype.  They  regarded  him 
as  an  honored  and  extraordinary  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  They 
embraced  his  theological  views,  followed  his  ecclesiastical  polity, 
and  adopted  the  whole  of  his  moral  discipline.  Consequently,  there 
is  no  probability  that  they  would  have  done  anything  in  religious 
matters  which  they  knew  was  contrary  to  his  expressed  and  pub 
lished  will. 

Now,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  only  six  years  before  this 
time,  he  had  published  his  "Thoughts  on  Slavery,"  which  must 
have  been  well  known  at  least  to  all  the  older  and  more  influential 
preachers.  In  that  tract,  after  having  set  forth  its  doctrine,  Mr. 
Wesley  applies  its  teachings  to  slaveholders,  specifically — whether 
they  were  such  by  purchase,  inheritance  or  otherwise — in  the  follow 
ing  unmistakable  words  :• — 

"And  this  equally  concerns  every  gentleman  that  has  an  estate  in 
our  American  plantations ;  yea,  all  slaveholders  of  whatever  rank 
and  degree ;  seeing  men-buyers  are  exactly  on  a  level  with  men 
stealers.  Indeed,  you  say,  '  I  pay  honestly  for  my  goods  ;  and  I  am 
not  concerned  to  know  how  they  are  come  by.'  Nay,  but  you  are  ; 
you  are  deeply  concerned  to  know  they  are  honestly  come  by. 
Otherwise  you  are  a  partaker  with  a  thief,  and  are  not  a  jot  honest  er 
than  he.  But  you  know  they  are  not  honestly  come  by ;  you  know 
they  are  procured  by  means  nothing  near  so  innocent  as  picking  of 
pockets,  housebreaking,  or  robbery  upon  the  highway.  You  know 
they  are  procured  by  a  deliberate  series  of  more  complicated  villainy 
(of  fraud,  robbery  and  murder)  than  was  ever  practised  either  by 
Mohammedans  or  Pagans;  in  particular,  by  murders  of  all  kinds; 
by  the  blood  of  the  innocent  poured  upon  the  ground  like  water.* 

*A  graphic  and  truthful  description  of  this  trade  is  from  the  pen  of  Hon. 
Horace  Mann,  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Speaking  of  Great  Britain  who 
introduced  Slavery  in  her  colonies,  he  says,  "  She  broke  into  the  Ethiop's  home. 


14:  Introduction  of  Slavery 

!Now,  it  is  your  money  that  pays  the  merchant,  and  through  him  the 
captains  and  the  African  butchers.  You,  therefore,  are  guilty,  yea, 
principally  guilty,  of  all  these  frauds,  robberies  and  murders.  You 
are  the  spring  that  puts  all  the  rest  in  motion  •  they  would  not  stir 
a  step  without  you  ;  therefore,  the  blood  of  all  these  wretches  who 
die  before  their  time,  whether  in  their  country  or  elsewhere,  lies 
upon  your  head.  'The  blood  of  thy  brother'  (for  whether  thou  wilt 
believe  it  or  no,  such  he  is  in  the  sight  of  Him  that  made  JfSm)  '  crieth 
against  thee  from  the  earth,'  from  the  ship,  and  from  the  waters. 
O !  whatever  it  costs,  put  a  stop  to  its  cry  before  it  be  too  late ; 
instantly,  at  any  pi-ice — were  it  the  half  of  your  goods,  deliver  thy 
self  from  blood-guiltiness !  Thy  hands,  thy  bed,  thy  furniture,'  thy 
house,  thy  lands,  are  at  present  stained  with  blood  !  Surely  it  is 
enough :  accumulate  no  more  guilt ;  spill  no  more  the  blood  of  the 
innocent !  Do  not  hire  another  to  shed  blood ;  do  not  pay  him  for 
doing  it !  Whether  you  are  a  Christian  or  no,  show  yourself  a  man ! 
Be  not  more  savage  than  a  lion  or  a  bear ! 

"Perhaps,  you  will  say,  '  I  do  not  buy  my  negroes  ;  I  only  use 
those  left  me  by  my  father.'  So  far  is  well ;  but  is  it  enough  to 
satisfy  your  own  conscience  ?  Had  your  father,  have  you,  has  any 
man  living,  a  right  to  use  another  as  a  slave  ?  It  cannot  be,  even 
setting  Revelation  aside.  It  cannot  be  that  either  war  or  contract 
can  give  any  man  such  a  property  in  another  as  he  has  in  his  sheep 
and  oxen.  Much  less  is  it  possible  that  any  child  of  man  should 
ever  be  l>orn  a  slave.  Liberty  is  the  right  of  every  human  creature, 
as  soon  as  he  breathes  the  vital  air  :  and  no  human  law  can  deprive 
him  of  that  right  which  he  derives  from  the  law  of  nature. 

"If,  therefore,  you  have  any  regard  to  justice,  (to  say  nothing  of 
mercy,  nor  the  revealed  will  of  God)  render  unto  all  their  due. 
Give  liberty  to  whom  liberty  is  due,  that  is,  to  every  child  of  man. 
Let  none  serve  you  but  by  his  own  act  and  deed,  by  his  own  volun 
tary  choice." 

Now,  these  were  the  published  and  the  known  views  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  whom  the  Methodists  of  that  day  revered  as  next  only  to 
the  inspired  apostles.  His  words  need  no  comment.  They  go  to 

as  a  wolf  into  a  sheep-fold  at  midnight.  She  set  the  continent  aflame,  that  she 
might  seize  the  affrighted  inhabitants  as  they  ran  shrieking  from  their  blazing 
hamlets.  The  aged  and  the  infant  were  left  to  the  vultures ;  but  the  strong  men 
and  the  strong  women  she  drove,  scourged  and  bleeding  to  the  shore.  Packed 
and  stowed  like  merchandise  between  unventilated  decks — so  close  that  the 
tempest  without  could  not  ruffle  the  pestilential  air  within — the  voyage  was 
begun.  Once  a  day  the  hatches  were  opened  to  receive  food  and  disgorge  the 
dead.  Thousands  and  thousands  of  corpses  which  she  plunged  into  the  ocean 
from  the  decks  of  her  slave  ships,  she  counted  only  as  the  tare  of  her  commerce. 
The  blue  monsters  of  the  deep  became  familiar  with  her  path- way;  and  not 
more  remorseless  than  she,  they  shared  her  plunder.  At  length  the  accursed 
vessel  reached  the  foreign  shore.  And  there,  the  monsters  of  the  land — fiercer 
and  feller  than  any  that  roam  the  watery  plains — rewarded  the  robber  by  pur 
chasing  his  spoils.  For  more  than  a  century  this  traffic  raged,  during  which 
the  clock  of  eternity  never  counted  one  minute  that  did  not  witness  the  death  of 
some  father  or  mother  of  Africa/' 


In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  15 

the  entire  root  of  this  evil.  He  places  the  holder  of  slaves — whether 
by  inheritance  or  otherwise — on  the  level  with  the  trafficker,  or 
rather,  below  them ;  for  it  was  the  gains  of  the  former,  which  were 
the  main  "spring  that  puts  all  the  rest  in  motion."  Now,  is  there 
even  a  shadow  of  probability,  that  those  who  had  followed  John 
Wesley  so  closely  in  all  other  matters,  should  have  departed  from 
him  so  widely  in  this  ?  And  that,  too,  at  the  time  of  their  ecclesias 
tical  organization,  or  indeed,  at  any  other  time?  Who,  then,  can 
believe  that  they  should  have  made  special  provision  to  allow,  or^ 
to  tolerate  in  their  societies,  that  which  he  had  so  sweepingly 
denounced  ?  We  say  that  it  is  morally  impossible  that  they  should. 
Everything  in  the  history  of  the  times,  and  in  their  own  character, 
is  against  such  a  supposition. 

In  accordance,  therefore,  with  the  views,  and  in  the  spirit  of  their 
pattern,  the  conference  in  Baltimore  of  ITSOj  put  forth  their  first 
Declaration  against  Slavery  :-— 

"  That  Slavery  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man  and  nature, 
and  hurtful  to  society ',  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and 
pure  religion,  and  doing  that  ivhich  we  would  not  others  should  do 
to  us  and  ours" 

So,  then,  Slavery,  and  certainly  slaveholding — whether  by  inher 
itance  or  otherwise — in  the  judgment  of  our  founders,  was  contrary 
to  the  laws  of  God — the  Scriptures — that  is,  it  was  a  sin.  2.  Con 
trary  to  those  of  man — an  unnatural  state,  one  dreaded  by  the 
whole  species.  3.  And  nature — for  it  blighted  and  blasted  every 
section  of  the  Lord's  earth  over  which  it  had  spread  itself.  4.  It 
was  hurtful  to  society — no  good  state  of  which  could  exist  where  it 
was,  no  reciprocity  of  interests,  no  public  spirit,  nor  general  schools. 
5.  Conscience  unseared  and  unimpaired  at  once  rejected  it.  6.  Pure 
religion  could  not  exist  with  it,  for  it  nullified  marriage  and  the 
Sabbath,  and  by  repelling  slave  testimony,  it  raised  a  screen  in  the 
Church  to  cover  up  every  abomination/  7.  In  one  word,  it  repu 
diated  the  golden  rule — the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  every  moral 
bond  which  keeps  society  together. 

This  was  the  testimony  of  our  fathers  against  Slavery — a  noble 
testimony — worthy  the  men  who  made  it,  worthy  of  the  gospel 
which  they  preached,  and  worthy  of  the  infant  churches  which  they 
were  then  planting.  It  was  put  forth  in  the  South — in  the  seat  of 
Slavery — at  the  zenith  of  the  foreign  slave  trade,  and  in  the  midst 
of  the  revolution,  when  a  timid,  worldly  policy  would  have  suggest 
ed  silence  ;  and  at  a  time  when  almost  every  man's  hand  was  raised 
against  them.  There  was  a  moral  sublimity  in  the  attitude  of  those 
early  Methodists.  As  ambassadors  from  God,  they  published  abroad 
their  entire  sentiments  on  the  question  of  Slavery.  They  did  not 
handle  the  word  of  God  deceitfully,  nor  keep  back  any  ungracious 
truth  from  the  people,  which  they  deemed  profitable  for  them. 
They  did  not  wait  till  public  opinion  was  prepared  to  receive  their 
principles.  They  were  in  advance  of  public  opinion.  Circum 
stances  at  this  period  did  not  mould  them  ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 


16  Introduction  of  Slavery 

they  set  themselves  to  the  remodelling  of  the  world  and  its  institu 
tions — especially  to  the  "spreading  of  holiness  throughout  the  land." 
None  were  more  willing  to  obey  Csesar  in  all  that  belonged  to  him. 
But  then  Cresar  must  keep  on  his  own  side  of  the  brook,  and  not 
invade  the  temple  or  the  territory  of  the  Lord ;  nor  attempt  to 
trammel  them  in  the  carrying  out  all  the  requisitions  of  the  gospel. 
The  Church  has  rights  as  well  as  the  State.  God,  who  ordained  the 
powers  that  be,  ordained,  also,  those  of  the  Church,  and  intended 
that  in  her  onward  course  of  reform  she  should  raise  the  lowly,  level 
the  high,  straighten  the  crooked,  and  make  the  rough  places  plain. 

During  the  subsequent  years  immediately  following,  the  confer 
ence  bore  the  same  testimony,  and  continued  the  same  means  for 
the  extirpation  of  Slavery.  But  these  merely  admonitory  measures 
did  not  seem  to  have  fully  effected  their  designed  object.  For  about 
the  time  of  the  Christmas  conference  of  1784,  when  the  societies 
were  to  be  organized  into  an  Independent  Church,  the  whole  eccle 
siastical  polity  was  again  thoroughly  reviewed ;  and  the  whole 
Discipline  of  the  infant  Church  was  compared  with  the  larger  Min 
utes  of  Mr.  Wesley :  "  Composing  a  form  of  Discipline  for  the  Minis 
ters,  Preachers,  and  other  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America."  * 

At  this  conference,  the  most  effectual  measures  were  taken  to  rid 
the  Church,  at  once  and  forever,  from  every  vestige  of  Slavery ;  and 
for  this  purpose,  in  answer  to  the  forty-second  question  of  the  new 
Discipline,  as  compared  with  the  large  Minutes,  it  was  asked  : — 

"  What  method  can  we  take  to  extirpate  Slavery  ? 

"Ans.  We  are  deeply  conscious  of  the  impropriety  of  making 
newf  terms  of  communion  for  a  religious  society  already  established, 
except  on  the  most  pressing  occasion.  And  such  we  deem  the  prac 
tice  of  holding  our  fellow  creatures  in  Slavery.  We  view  it  contrary 
to  the  golden  rule  of  God — on  which  hang  all  the  law  and  prophets 
— and  the  inalienable  rights  of  mankind,  as  well  as  the  principles 
of  the  revolution,  to  hold  in  the  deepest  abasement,  in  a  more  abject 
Slavery  than  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  any  part  of  the  world  except 
America,  so  many  souls  that  are  capable  of  the  image  of  God. 

"  We,  therefore,  think  it  our  most  bounden  duty,  to  take  imme 
diately  some  effectual  method  to  extirpate  this  abomination  from 
among  us.  And  for  that  purpose,  we  add  the  following  to  the  rule 
of  our  society." 

Here  follow  the  rules,  the  purport  of  which  was,  that  there  should 
be  a  full  and  entire  emancipation  of  every  slave  in  the  possession  of 
the  members  of  the  Church,  and  that  such  "An  instrument  should  be 
legally  executed  and  recorded."  Then  the  third  clause  of  the  rule  adds: 

*  Title  page  of  Discipline:  New- York,  1789. 

f  On  reflection,  we  think  our  founders  would  have  seen,  that  in  this  apologetical 
phrase,  they  had  conceded  too  much.  For  it  could  have  been  no  new  term  to 
require  their  members  to  observe  the  most  obvious  principle  of  Christian  morality. 
For  the  very  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church  required  it,  without  a  specific 
rule  in  the  matter. 


In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  17 

"  In  consideration  that  these  rules  form  a  new  term  of  commun 
ion,  every  person  concerned,  who  will  not  comply  with  them,  shall 
have  liberty  quietly  to  withdraw  himself  from  our  society  within 
twelve  months  succeeding  the  notice  given  as  aforesaid ;  otherwise, 
the  assistant  shall  exclude  him  in  the  society." 

4.  "  No  person  so  voluntarily  withdrawn,  or  excluded,  shall  ever 
partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the  Methodists,  till  he  complies 
with  the  above  requisitions." 

5.  "  No  person  hoMing  slaves,  shall  in  future  be  admitted  to  our 
society,  or  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  till  he  previously  complies  with 
these  rules  concerning  Slavery." 

And  then  in  a  nota  lene,  they  immediately  add  : — "  These  rules 
are  to  affect  the  members  of  our  society  no  farther  than  they  are 
consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  they  reside."  And 
the  brethren  in  Virginia  "  were  allowed  two  years  from  the  notice 
given,  to  consider  the  expedience  of  compliance^or  non-compliance 
with  these  rules."  These,  then,  were  the  existing  rules  of  the  Meth 
odist  Episcopal  Church  at  her  organization  in  1784. 

Here  it  should  be  observed,  that  the  rules  for  the  continuance  of 
membership  in  the  above  case,  required  a  bill  of  emancipation 
"  legally  executed  and  recorded."  In  some  States,  however,  it  was 
"  inconsistent  with  the  laws,"  to  do  this ;  for  as  there  was  no  law  in 
the  matter,  consequently  there  could  have  been  no  legal  process,  and 
no  legal  book  of  record.  In  the  State  of  Virginia  there  were  pecu 
liar  difficulties ;  hence,  the  conference  gave  them  two  years  to  comply 
with  the  rule. 

Now,  as  already  observed,  what  the  rules  required,  was  a  legal 
and  recorded  emancipation,  which  in  some  States  could  not  be  ob 
tained.  But  this  legal  emancipation  must  not  be  confounded — as 
many  do — with  a  moral  and  real  emancipation ;  hence,  the  conference 
made  exceptions,  where  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  the 
State.  The  former  could  not  be  effected  in  some  cases ;  but  the 
latter  could  be  at  all  times,  and  in  every  place :  and  consequently, 
there  could  be  no  exceptions  to  its  requirements.  For  the  conference 
never  assumed  the  popish  power  of  granting  a  dispensation  to  con 
tinue  in  sin,  nor  could  they  measure  moral  obligation  by  geograph 
ical  or  state  lines.  They  certainly  never  intended  that  an  iniquitous 
State  law  should  release  the  church  member  from  his  moral  obliga 
tion  to  obey  God  in  giving  to  his  fellow  creature  "  that  which  was 
just  and  equal"  for  his  work — or  from  his  obligation  to  "execute 
justice  and  judgment "  to  all  men — nor  from,  the  requirements  of 
the  Church  he  had  joined,  to  aid  her  in  "  extirpating  that  abomina 
tion  from  among  them." 

For  the  conference  knew,  and  every  body  should  know,  that  no 
law  can  prevent  the  reputed  master  from  announcing  to  his  former 
slave,  that  he  disclaims  all  right  of  property  in  him,  and  that  he 
discards,  as  anti-scriptural,  all  the  authority  which  the  slaveholding 
laws  may  give  over  him ;  thereby,  immediately  and  forever,  clearing 
himself  of  the  sin  of  Slavery,  before  God  and  in  the  face  of  the  world. 


18  Introduction  of  Slavery 

Can  any  power  under  Heaven  prevent  the  white  man  from  treat 
ing  the  black  man  as  a  human  being,  a  Christian,  a  brother?  Can 
the  State  prevent  him  in  some  way,  from  giving  the  reputed  slave 
fair,  honest  wages  for  his  work — a  right  to  his  wife  and  to  his  child 
ren — or  liberty  to  remove  to  a  State  where  he  can  enjoy  full  free 
dom?  Or,  if  the  freedman  chose  to  remain  with  him,  the  former 
.  master,  as  a  guardian,  can  protect  him  from  cruel  and  oppressive 
State  laws.  Where  there  is  a  will,  there  is  a  way.  All  these,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  her  organization,  "required  from  all 
her  members.  And  thus  she  never  could  have  excepted  any  of 
them,  in  any  State,  from  the  moral  obligation  of  giving  a  true  and 
a  real  emancipation  ;  because,  God's  word  never  excepted  any  from 
the  doing  of  "  that  ^hich  was  right  and  just."  The  letter  and  spirit 
of  her  rules  require  the  same  at  the  present  day.  "Where  there 
can  not  be  a  legal  and  civil  emancipation,  the  Church  supposes,  in 
effect,  the  relation  of  guardian  and  ward,  the  protector  and  the  pro 
tected  ;  but  her  organic  law  never  intended  to  sanction  the  relation 
of  slaveholder  and  slave,  either  morally  or  ecclesiastically.  For 
even  the  intention  of  enslaving  a  man,  woman  or  child — and  much 
more  the  actual  holding  of  them  in  that  relation — was  deemed  a 
disqualification  for  membership.  It  was  the  practice  of  Slavery — 
the  holding  of  slaves,  not  the  mere  buying  and  selling — which  they 
aimed  to  extirpate.  It  was  the  real,  living,  laboring,  soul-degrading 
practice  which  they  abhorred. — That  practice,  whether  it  was 
carried  on  by  a  professor  or  a  sinner,  by  a  preacher  or  a  bishop, 
whether  in  Virginia,  New- York,  or  the  Carolines,  whether  the  claim 
came  through  a  bequest,  by  purchase,  or  inheritance.  What  folly 
it  is  to  lose  sight  of  the  subject,  and  to  lay  the  whole  stress  upon  its 
accidents.  Buying  and  selling  are  the  mere  accidents  of  Slavery, 
which  may  or  may  not  exist,  and  still  there  may  be  Slavery  of  the 
most  horrid  character.  The  subject,  the  thing  itself,  that  which 
embodies  the  iniquity,  and  that  which  our  organic  law  prohibits,  is 
the  holding  and  using  of  a  human  being  as  property — the  getting 
of  work,  without  paying  for  it.  This  was  that  which  constituted  the 
sin  of  Slavery,  in  estimation  of  our  fathers.  This  latter,  is  the  real 
pith  and  germ  of  Slavery,  and  it  is  as  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "  the  spring 
that  puts  all  the  rest  in  motion," —  the  traders  and  the  kidnappers. 

In  a  word,  during  the  Revolution,  Slavery  crept  into  our  Church ; 
in  1780,  the  conference  sent  forth  their  first  declaration  against  it ; 
these  admonitory  measures,  however,  failing  in  their  object,  in  1784, 
at  her  organization,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  took  an  "  effec 
tual  method "  to  sweep  away  the  last  vestige  of  Slavery  from  her 
border.  And  when  our  Church  was  founded,  this  effectual  method, 
this  entire  prohibition  of  slaveholding,  was  then  the  law  of  the 
Church — a  law,  at  that  time,  standing  out  in  its  full  force,  unim 
paired,  unrepealed,  and  unsuspended. 

These  rules  were  then  the  materials  out  of  which  the  general  rule 
on  Slavery  was  subsequently  formed.  Indeed,  the  entire  extinction 
of  all  slaveholding,  as  set  forth  in  Wesley's  "  Thoughts  on  Slavery," 


In  the,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  19 

and  in  the  declaration  of  sentiment  by  the  conference  of  1780,  was 
the  object,  the  pith,  and  the  purpose — the  whole  scope  and  design 
of  all  that  the  early  Methodists  ever  said  or  wrote  on  this  subject. 
And  further,  the  spirit,  the  animus  of  these  rules,  is  really  the  only 
clue  to  a  right  interpretation  of  the  present  general  rule.  Without 
reference  to  these,  no  one  ever  can  give  any  thing  like  a  clear  and 
satisfactory  solution  to  the  subsequent  legislation  of  our  Church  upon 
Slavery. 

This",  then,  was  the  original  basis  on  which  our  Church  was  found 
ed.  Mr.  Lee  himself,  the  southern  historian,  acknowledges  all  this, 
and  affirms  [page  101]  "That  it  was  founded  with  a  number  of 
express  rules,  which  stipulated  that  Slavery  should  not  be  continued 
in  the  Church"  And  to  this  original  basis,  it  is  the  bounden  duty 
of  every  Methodist  to  "bring  her  back.  In  the  words  of  the  old 
discipline,  "  Let  this  be  continued  from  year  to  year,  till  the  desired 
end  be  accomplished."  We  readily  allow  that  these  rules  were  not 
fully  carried  out;  they  were,  however,  in  very  many  instances,  as 
we  shall  show. 

But  in  the  constitutional  argument,  however,  we  lose  nothing  in 
conceding  that  this  "  effectual  method  "  to  rid  the  Church  of  Sla 
very  was  never  fully  or  generally  carried  out.  The  early  Meth 
odists,  in  good  faith,  tried  to  enforce  it.  They  did  enforce  it  in  hun 
dreds  of  instances,  as  I  have  heard  old  Methodists  of  that  day  affirm 
from  their  own  knowledge,  and  as  may  still  be  seen  in  the  un 
precedented  emancipations  which  took  place  between  1790  and 
1800.  But  they  met  with  difficulties,  with  great  difficulties,  as  all 
will  in  attempting  to  abolish  an  enormity  of  such  ramifications,  and 
of  such  gigantic  proportions.  They  hesitated ;  they  "gave  time  for 
consideration,"  and  soon  suspended  the  rule  for  a  limited  term,  "  to  a 
future  conference."  But  they  never  repealed  it ;  they  never  compro 
mised  it ;  but  after  struggling  for  twenty  or  more  years  to  enforce 
it,  they  seem  to  have  allowed  it  to  go  by  default.  This  prohibitory 
rule  was  never  suspended  indefinitely.  And  ever  since,  at  least 
nominally,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  stands  protesting  against 
the  continuance  of  slaveholders  in  her  communion,  and  asking,  every 
day,  by  the  thousands  of  disciplines  which  she  sends  forth  every  year, 
"what  shall  be  done  to  extirpate  Slavery?"  Does  this  look  like 
making  constitutional  provision  for  its  continuation,  under  any 
circumstances,  in  the  Church  ? 


CHAPTER  III. 


ORGANIZATION     OF    THE     METHODIST     EPISCOPAL     CHURCH. 
HER     CONSTITUTION     NON  •  SLAVEHOLDI  NG. 


HISTORY  or  THE  RULE  ON  SLAVERY  —  IN  WHAT  HER  CONSTITUTION  CONSISTS — 
MAIN  QUESTION  STATED — TERMS  DEFINED  —  DESIGN  OF  THE  RULE  —  SUBJECT 
TREATED  PuiLOLOGIC ALLY —  ETHICALLY —  HISTORICALLY. 


THE  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
acknowledged  nationality  of  the  United  States,  were  nearly  contem 
poraneous.  After  a  struggle  of  seven  years,  the  young  republic 
took  her  station  among  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  and  the  Methodist 
societies  having  been  served  for  eighteen  years  by  lay  preachers,. and 
consequently  destitute  of  the  ordinances,  were  formed  into  an  eccle 
siastical  body,  enjoying  all  the  privileges  of  a  Christian  Church. 
This  important  event  took  place  on  Christmas,  1784,  the  object  of 
which  was  "to  reform  the  Continent,  and  spread  Bible  holiness 
through  these  lands." 

As  has  been  already  stated,  during  the  confusion  of  the  revolu 
tion,  when  the  reception  of  members,  and  the  administration  of  the 
discipline  were  mostly  in  the  hands  of  the  recently  converted  and 
inexperienced  ministers,  Slavery  found  its  way  into  the  American 
Methodist  societies.  At  this  Conference  (1784*),  when  the  founda 
tion  of  her  ecclesiastical  polity  was  about  to  be  laid,  special  and 
vigorous  measures  were  immediately  taken  to  extirpate  that  which 
had  been  introduced,  and  to  guard  against  its  future  introduction. 
For  this  purpose,  the  entire  following  clause  was  shortly  afterwards 
added  to  Mr.  Wesley's  original  general  rules. 

*I  have  placed  the  general  rule  on  Slavery  as  early  as  1784,  on  the  authority 
of  the  fifth  edition  of  the  discipline,  now  before  me ;  the  title  page  of  which 
reads  thus:  "A  form  of  Discipline,  for  the  ministers,  &c.  of  the  Methodist  Epis 
copal  Church  in  America,  considered  and  approved  at  a  Conference  held  in  Balti 
more,  Maryland,  on  Monday,  27th  of  December,  1784:  in  which  Thomas  Coke 
and  Francis  Asbury  presided.  The  Fifth  Edition.  New- York:  Printed  by 
William  Ross,  in  Broad-street,  1789."  By  the  title  page  of  this  discipline,  it  would 
appear  that  the  rule  had  been  formally  "  considered  and  approved"  in  the  Christ 
mas  conference  of  1784.  But  it  is  not  very  probable  that  it  was  embodied  in  the 
discipline  in  the  above  words,  until  two  and  a  half  years  afterwards — until  1787. 
The  discipline  of  this  year  has  never  been  recovered.  But  it  is  evident  that  the 
rule,  as  above  quoted,  was  in  this  edition;  for  in  the  edition  of  1789,  it  was  incor 
porated  with  the  other  general  rules,  in  the  very  words  which  we  have  quoted 
over  the  signatures  of  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury,  and  dated  May  28, 1787. 


Constitution  of  the  M.  E.  Church  Non-Slaveholding.        21 

"  The  buying  or  selling  the  souls  and  bodies  of  men,  women  or 
children,  with  an  intention  to  enslave  them." 

Whether  this  addition  was  made  by  the  order  of  Mr.  "Wesley,  or 
at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Coke  ;  or  whether  it  originated  wholly  with 
the  American  societies,  cannot,  at  this  time,  be  determined  ;  but  the 
probability  is,  that  it  was  with  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  conference  with 
him  in  Baltimore,  who,  four  years  before,  had  put  forth  that  noble 
declaration  of  sentiment  against  Slavery. 

The  truth  is,  this  rule  and  all  others  in  regard  to  Slavery  at  this 
time,  were  self-imposed  by  the  southern  Methodists  upon  themselves ; 
some  of  whom  might  have  been  formerly  slaveholders,  and  all  of 
whom  had  been  more  or  less  acquainted  with  the  entire  system. 
For  at  this  period,  it  must  be  remembered,  our  societies  were  almost 
entirely  confined  to  the  present  slaveholding  States.  On  account  of 
the  war,  Methodism  had  spread  but  very  little  to  the  north  or  east ; 
even  one  year  after  the  peace — in  1785 — there  were  but  five  places 
to  which  preachers  were  appointed,  situated  in  what  are  now  called 
the  free  States  ;  and  of  about  15,000  members,  of  which  our  Church 
was  at  that  time  composed,  nearly  14,000  were  within  the  bounds 
of  the  present  slaveholding  States.  Southern  anti-slavery  Meth 
odists,  who  are  really  such,  always  have  been  found  to  be  among 
the  most  thorough,  constant,  and  energetic  opponents  to  Slavery. 
And  we  believe  the  day  is  not  very  distant,  when  men  will  arise 
from  among  themselves,  who  will  take  the  right  ground  on  this 
question,  and  who  will  put  to  silence  and  to  shame  those  northern 
ones,  who  so  long  have  followed  a  wavering,  inconsistent,  and  con 
tradictory  course. 

The  evil  of  Slavery  must  have  been  great  in  their  estimation,  to 
have  caused  them  to  insert  such  an  entire  addition  to  rules  which 
had  been  the  standard  among  Methodists  from  the  beginning,  and 
which  had  been  set  forth  by  their  founder  as  the  moral  code  of 
Christianity.  But  Slavery  was  a  form  of  iniquity  with  which  Meth 
odism  had  never  before  come  in  collision ;  and  it  required  a  new 
and  special  rule  to  meet  the  emergency  of  the  case,  and  to  exclude 
it  from  the  new  and  rising  community.  And  in  this  entire  investi 
gation,  we  should  ever  keep  in  view  what  was  the  object,  the  scope, 
and  design  of  this  special,rule.  This  seems  to  have  been  almost  wholly 
overlooked.  Many  have  regarded  merely  the  words.  It  was  not 
specifically  against  the  traffic,  as  it  has  been  so  strangely  affirmed, 
i  or  at  that  time,  there  was  properly  no  such  thing  as  the  domestic 
slave  trade ;  there  was,  indeed,  the  buying  and  selling  of  slaves  in 
the  town  or  in  the  neighborhood,  but  the  domestic  slave  trade  did 
not  arise  till  thirty  years  after  this — till  after  the  purchase  of  Louis 
iana,  in  1803.  And  further,  in  such  transfers  at  that  day,  there  was 
nothing  opprobrious  in  them.  And  in  regard  to  the  African  slave 
trade,  who  can  believe  that  the  few  poor  and  God-fearing  Methodists 
of  that  period  were  so  eager  to  join  the  marauders  in  Africa,  that  a 
special  rule  was  necessary  to  restrain  them  from  it  ?  Nor  was  it 
merely  to  "  legalize  slaveholding  by  inheritance."  This  is  a  new 


22         Constitution  of  the  M.  E.  Church  Non-Slaveholding. 

invention  to  sustain  a  bad  cause,  and  one  that  is  really  not  worth 
answering.  Now,  the  object  of  this  special  rule  was  not  for  any  of 
these  purposes,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  instituted  as  it  is  every 
where  expressed,  "  to  extirpate  "  the  Slavery  that  had  crept  in  un 
awares,  and  to  exclude  forever,  hereafter,  "  this  abomination," —  as 
they  then  called  Slavery — from  the  precincts  of  the  Methodist  Epis 
copal  Church. 

The  organic  law  or  constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  is  said  to  be  included  in  her  articles  of  religion,  general 
rules,  and  restrictive  regulations;  and  the  several  parts  of  these 
are  to  be  taken  as  a  whole,  a  unit;  and  they  are  always  to  be  inter 
preted  as  in  entire  agreement  with  themselves.  Or  rather,  the  two 
last,  being  derived  from  the  first,  are  always  to  be  construed  in 
agreement  with  the  first ;  and  in  all  doubtful  cases,  in  regard  to  their 
true  meaning,  they  are  to  be  interpreted  by  the  articles  of  religion, 
and  consequently,  the  holy  scriptures,  whence  these  articles  are 
derived ;  for  no  one  can  suppose  that  our  founders  ever  intended 
to  insert  any  thing  in  the  general  rules  which  they  thought  to  be 
contrary  to  the  bible.  And  our  articles  of  religion,  which  we  thus 
receive  as  the  essential  constitution  of  our  Church,  affirm,  that  "  The 
holy  scriptures  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation :  so  that 
whatever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to 
be  required  of  any  man  " — so  that  the  moral  code  of  our  Church  is 
never  to  be  construed  contrary  to  the  holy  scriptures,  but  always  in 
agreement  with  them.  Consequently,  the  scriptures  are  to  guide  us 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  general  rule. 

"We  now  approach  the  main  question.  Does  the  constitution  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  allow,  under  any  circumstances,  to 
her  members  the  practice  of  slaveholdingf  Was  it  the  mind  or  in 
tention  of  our  founders  that  slaveholders  might  be  continued  in  the 
Church,  while  they  still  retained  their  slaves?  We  have  thus 
stated  the  case  fully  and  strongly,  avoiding  the  mystifications  of 
exceptions  and  circumstances.  And  to  this  statement  there  can  be 
but  two  answers.  We  take  the  negative ;  that  the  founders  of  our 
Church  never  intended  that  Slavery,  in  any  case,  should  be  allowed 
to  exist  within  her  sacred  borders. 

But  here,  before  we  attempt  to  prove  our  position,  we  must  define 
the  terms  employed  in  this  investigation,  or  in  other  words,  we  wish 
to  show  what  Slavery  is,  and  who  is  a  slaveholder,  This  is  very 
necessary,  for  in  no  controversy  has  there  been  such  an  ocean  of 
mist  and  confusion  as  in  the  present  one.  Terms  have  been  used  so 
vaguely,  in  such  an  indefinite  sense,  that  good  men  have  been  fight 
ing  each  other  in  the  dark.  John  Wesley  denominated  Slavery  to 
be  "  execrable  villainy:"  again  he  says,  "I  strike  at  the  root  of  this 
complicated  villainy,  I  absolutely  deny  all  slaveholding  to  be  con 
sistent  with  any  degree  of  natural  justice."  A  disciple  of  his,  Dr. 
Fisk,  speaks  of  it,  on  the  contrary,  as  of  a  "  present  rightful  author 
ity,"  and  Bishop  Hedding  has  said  that  one  "  may  hold  a  slave  by 
the  golden  rule."  The  first  Methodists  said,  "  That  Slavery  was 


Constitution  of  the  M.  E.  Church  Non-Sla/veholding .        23 

contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man  and  nature ;"  but  many  among 
the  modern  ones  affirm,  that  simple  slaveholding  should  be  no  bar 
to  an  admittance  into  the  Church.  Then  again,  we  have  many  dis 
tinctions  ;  "  sinful  and  innocent  Slavery,"  "  voluntary  and  involun 
tary,  mercenary,  and  even  benevolent  slaveholding." 

Now,  all  these  positions  cannot  be  true.  Certainly,  our  language 
is  not  so  poor  that  it  cannot  afford  us  words  through  which  we  can 
express  our  meaning.  And  as  we  seem  to  be  called  upon  to  fight 
the  battle  of  freedom  over  again,  let  us  define  our  terms  at  once. 
Truth  discriminates;  error  confounds  things.  What  then  is  Slavery, 
and  who,  then,  is  a  slaveholder? 

Webster  defines  a  slave  to  be — UA  person  who  is  wholly  subject  to 
the  will  of  another ;  one  who  has  no  freedom  of  actions,  but  whose 
person  and  services  are  wholly  under  the  control  of  another."  This 
is  a  good  general  definition.  We  will  now  give  two  legal  ones  of 
Slavery,  which,  without  any  material  variations,  obtain  throughout 
the  slaveholding  States  :  "A  slave  is  in  the  power  of  his  master,  to 
whom  he  belongs.  The  master  may  sell  him,  dispose  of  his  person, 
his  industry  and  labor.  He  can  do  nothing,  possess  nothing,  nor 
acquire  any  thing  but  what  must  belong  to  his  master."  This, 
without  any  figure  of  speech,  is  the  absorption  of  one  human  being 
into  another ;  for  if  the  slave  have  hands,  they  are  not  his  own — 
his  body  is  not  his  own.  Indeed,  in  reference  to  the  slave,  his  and 
my  are  mere  figures  of  speech.  He  can  possess  nothing.  To  use 
himself  for  his  own  good,  is  a  crime.  To  keep  what  he  earns,  is 
stealing.  To  take  the  management  of  himself  for  himself,  is  insur 
rection,  and  punishable  with  death. 

The  relation,  per  se,  gives  the  right  of  entire  property  to  the 
master,  to  use  the  slave  for  his  own  exclusive  benefit.  He  can  task 
him,  let  him,  lease  or  sell  him.  The  master  is  entitled  by  the  rela 
tion,  to  obedience  without  bounds,  to  the  fruits  of  the  slave's  labor, 
and  even  the  children  of  his  body.  And  the  slave,  on  his  part,  is 
subjected  by  this  relation,  in  the  words  of  southern  law,  "  To 
absolute  obedience,  respect  without  bounds,  and  a  subordination  not 
susceptible  of  any  modification  or  restriction.  There  must  be  no 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  master"  Consequently,  every  slave, 
male  or  female,  is  obliged  to  obey  every  command,  good  or  bad,  and 
to  yield  to  every  act  of  lust  and  power  which  the  master  may  enjoin. 
When  all  this  is  done,  the  relation  is  not  abused,  nor  its  legitimate 
bounds  transcended,  but  all  this  is  done  within  its  constitutional 
limits.  All  these  correlative  rights  and  obligations  are  essential  to 
its  very  being.  Take  any  of  them  away,  and  it  ceases  to  be  slavery. 
There  are  those,  no  doubt,  who  do  not  claim  all  that  Slavery  gives 
them,  but  while  they  sustain  the  relation,  they  are  a  part  of  the 
whole  system,  and  sustain  others  in  claiming  all  that  the  system 
allows. 

The  leading  or  essential  attribute  in  the  relation,  is  that  G£ property 
in  a  human  being.  This  right  of  property,  as  one  may  easily  see, 
at  once  subverts  every  other  relation  which  God  has  established 


24:        Constitution  of  the  M.  E.  Church  Non-Slaveholding. 

among  human  beings.  It  subverts  the  social,  domestic,  civil  and 
even  religious  relations,  to  wit :  the  slave's  reputed  wife  is  not  his 
own — she  belongs  to  another,  her  master,  who  owns  her  person — 
and  without  violating  the  relation  in  the  least,  can  use  her  as  he 
pleases.  The  slave's  children  are  not  his  own.  In  civil  society  he 
is  nobody ;  but  a  thing.  The  relation  requires  him  to  render  to  his 
master  "  absolute  obedience,  loithout  modification  or  restriction" 
Now,-  without  a  figure  or  exaggeration,  does  not  this  put  the  master 
in  the  place  of  God,  as  it  regards  the  slave  ?  If,  at  any  time,  the 
slave  should  obey  God  in  opposition  to  his  master,  in  this  case  he 
violates  the  requirements  of  the  relation,  and  if  the  master  should 
not  require  all  the  above,  it  is  a  mere  concession  on  his  part ;  the 
relation  gives  him  the  right. 

Now,  this  is  the  Slavery  and  the  relation  which  the  venerable 
founders  of  our  Church  declared  to  be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God, 
without  regard  to  the  modification  of  circumstances.  And  this  is 
the  Slavery  which  exists  at  this  hour,  and  ever  must  exist  while  it  is 
Slavery.  A  supposed  "Slavery  only  in  name,  in  which  there  is  no 
oppression,  in  which  there  is  justice  or  righteousness,"  is  an  impossi 
bility  ;  it  is  a  misnomer,  a  contradiction.  We  might  as  well  talk  of 
fire  in  which  there  is  no  heat — of  frost  in  which  there  is  no  coldness, 
as  to  talk  of  Slavery  in  which  there  are  no  oppression  and  injustice. 

How  it  is  to  be  lamented  that  learned  ministers,  good  brethren, 
who  love  the  cause  of  humanity,  and  the  reputation  of  the  Church 
to  which  they  belong,  should  use  terms  in  such  a  sense  which  actu 
ally  gives  the  most  efficient  strength  and  permanancy  to  that  very 
system  which  they  say  they  are  trying  to  pull  down.  They  talk  of 
Slavery  under  certain  circumstances,  which  circumstances,  accord 
ing  to  their  showing,  at  least  in  some  cases,  forms  a  condition  which 
is  really  no  Slavery  at  all,  but  something  of  a  different  character, 
partaking  of  the  relation  of  guardian  and  ward,  the  protector  and 
the  protected.  Yet,  the  misapplication  of  these  terms  do  immense 
mischief.  It  was  this,  no  doubt,  which  the  good  bishop  meant,  when 
he  said  "  one  could  hold  a  slave  by  the  golden  rule."  Why  then  do 
not  these  brethren  use  the  words  Slavery  and  slaveholder  in  their 
grammatical  and  in  their  legal  sense  ?  Why  should  they  mislead 
by  this  entire  misapplication  of  terms,«  and  give  the  infidel  and 
others,  who  understand  the  words  in  their  legitimate  sense,  an  occa 
sion  to  spurn  a  religion,  which,  according  to  their  showing,  outrages 
every  principle  of  natural  justice?  The  words  Slavery  and  slave 
holder  are  as  capable  of  clear  definitions  as  any  other  words  in  the 
language.  Why  then  do  they  not  use  them  in  their  true  and  gram 
matical  meaning  ?  For  the  condition  of  guardian  and  ward  is  as 
far  from  that  of  slave  and  slaveholder,  as  heaven  is  from  hell.  If 
they  mean  the  former,  why  not  say  so  ?  and  if  the  latter,  why  should 
they  be  offended  to  be  called  pro-slavery  ?  "For  if  these  brethren 
mean  that  a  member  of  the  Church  can  legally  hold  and  use  a 
human  being  as  a  slave,  and  still  continue  in  the  Church,  they  are 
certainly  for  Slavery,  for  its  continuance,  under  present  circum- 


Constitution  of  the  M.  E.  Church  Non-Slaveholdiny.         25 

stances ;  and  pro-Slavery  is  certainly  the  most  appropriate  name  to 
designate  those  who  hold  such  opinions.  To  say  they  are  anti-sla 
very,  that  is,  merely  opposed  to  Slavery,  is  not  saying  any  thing 
more  than  nineteen-twentieths  of  all  the  slaveholders  in  the  land. 
It  is  too  general  to  mean  any  thing.  A  learned  judge  once  said, 
"he  was  always  fearful  of  those  witnesses  who  deal  in  generalities." 
We  have  thus  labored  to  define  the  terms  which  we  use  in  this 
investigation.  We  have  dwelt  on  them  for  some  time,  from  a  full 
conviction,  that  the  misapplication  of  the  terms  Slavery,  slave 
holder,  and  the  mystification  of  "  certain  circumstances,"  employed 
by  prominent  men  in  our  Church,  have  been  more  detrimental 
to  the  cause  of  religion  and  of  emancipation,  than  the  most  pro- 
Slavery  doctrines  could  possibly  have  been.  The  tree  is  known  by 
its  fruits.  What  then  has  been  the  tendency  of  this  indefiniteness  ?-' 

1.  It  has  nearly  obliterated  all  the  lines  by  which  we  were  accustom 
ed  to  designate  the  boundaries  between  justice  and  injustice.    It  has 
diffused  such  a  mist  and  haze  over  the  whole  subject  of  Slavery,  and 
the  duties  of  Christians,  and  of  slaveholders  themselves,  that  almost 
every  thing  in  regard  to  duty  has  become  uncertain.     We  seem  to 
grope  as  if  we  had  no  eyes.     We  are  left  as  if  we  had  no  revelation 
in  this  matter,  and  that  every  one  is  at  liberty  to  infer  his  duty  as  he 
pleases,  or  to  define  such  justifying  circumstances  as  will  best  suit  him. 

2.  While  all  acknowledge  and  even  bewail  the  evil  of  Slavery, 
every  one  fancies  himself  within  the  "  circumstances  which  free  him 
from  the  charge  of  any  immorality  in  the  matter."     And  thus  it 
turns  out  that  there  is  not  a  slaveholder,  from  the  most  indulgent 
master  to  the  worst  negro  trader,  or  the  veriest  Legree,  of  Uncle 
Tom  celebrity,  who  cannot,  by  the  misapplication  of  these  terms, 
persuade  himself  that  he  is  within  the  limit  of  those  justifying 
circumstances,  which  these  brethren,  doctors  and  conferences  say, 
"clear  him  from  any  participation  in  sinful  slaveholding." 

3.  It  has  transferred  the  blame  from  the  individual  to  the  State, 
to  the  system,  or  at  least  to  those  who  at  first  brought  slaves  to  this 
country.     The  present  slaveholder,  in  his  estimation,  at  this  time, 
can  do  nothing;  and  where  there  is  no  ability,  there  can  be  no  blame. 
So  that  while  there  is  an  enormous  amount  of  sin,  there  is,  at  the  same 
time,  no  sinner.     God's  laws  are  violated,  but  no  one  is  accountable 
for  it,  unless  it  be  the  State,  or  the  system  ;  and  these  are  both  im 
personalities  without  conscience,  and  without  a  moral  existence. 
And  thus  God's  word  is  made  of  no  avail  through  their  indefinite- 
ness  and  vague  generalities. 

We  return  now  to  the  examination  of  the  general  rule — the  moral 
constitution  of  our  Church  on  Slavery.  And  for  the  sake  of  order, 
we  will  treat  it  philologically,  ethically  and  historically. 

At  this  point,  let  us  again  inquire  more  fully,  what  was  the  design 
in  making  the  rule  at  all  ?  It  had  some  design.  What  was  it  to 
have  accomplished  ?  To  understand  the  scope  or  design  of  a  docu 
ment,  is  almost  to  understand  the  whole  of  it.  It  is  the  clue  to 

3 


26         Constitution  of  the  M.  E.  Church  Non-Slaveholding. 

unravel  that  which  may  be  entangled ;  or,  it  is  like  the  main  direc 
tion  to  the  traveler,  who  is  surrounded  by  various  and  winding  roads. 
"  The  scope,"  one  has  \vell  observed,  "  is  the  soul  or  spirit  of  a  book 
or  document.  And  that  being  once  ascertained,  every  argument 
and  word  appears  in  its  right  place,  and  is  perfectly  intelligible; 
but  if  the  scope  be  not  duly  considered,  every  thing  becomes 
obscured,  however  clear  and  obvious  its  meaning  may  really  be."* 

What,  then,  was  the  design  in  originating  the  rule  f  It  was  not, 
'Certainly,  to  establish  Slavery.  For  this  could  have  been  better 
accomplished  by  saying  nothing  about  it,  as  they  do  at  the  far  South. 
It  was  not,  as  was  argued  at  the  last  general  conference,  to  give 
Methodists  the  "  right  to  hold  a  slave  by  inheritance,"  for  this  plan 
would  appear  very  absurd  and  contradictory :  to  make  provisions  to 
perpetuate  it,  and  then  to  extirpate  it  at  the  same  breath.  Most 
evidently,  the  whole  scope  and  design  -of  the  rule,  was  to  abolish 
the  Slavery  which  had  crept  into  the  Church,  and  to  exclude, 
forever,  its  further  introduction.  This  was  the  pith  and  purpose  of 
the  rule. 

The  rule  under  consideration  was  special:  it  had  never  been  in 
Mr.  Wesley's  original  ones.  It  was  framed  to  meet  a  specific  and 
local  case  in  our  country ;  an  evil  with  which  Methodism  had  never 
before  came  in  contact.  And  as  it  came  from  those  who  originated 
It,  it  stands  in  the  fifth  edition  of  the  discipline,  printed  1789,  and 
reads  thus:  "The  buying  or  selling  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men, 
women  or  children,  loit/i  an  intention  to  enslave  them"  In  the 
discipline  of  1792,  it  reads,  "The  buying  or  selling  of  men,  women 
or  children  with  an  intention  to  enslave  them."  And  in  1808,  the 
rule  was  mutilated  and  altered  to  the  present  reading : ."  The  buying 
and  selling  of  men,  women  and  children  with  an  intention  to  enslave 
them."  13r.  Robert  Emory,  in  his  History  of  the  Discipline,  say?, 
"For  this  alteration  (if,  indeed,  it  be  not  a  purely  typographical 
error)  no  authority  is  found  in  the  journal  of  the  general  conference." 
This,  however,  was  no  typographical  error,  as  the  veriest  tyro  of  the 
type  can  see.  The  mutilation  of  so  short  a  sentence  by  the  throwing 
out  of  more  than  one-fifth  of  its  words,  and  by  the  substitution  of 
two  other  words,  of  entirely  different  meaning,  could  never  have 
been  such  an  error. 

In  its  original  and  only  authoritative  form,  the  rule  prohibited  the 
purchase  of  one  single  human  being  who  was  to  be  held  in  Slavery. 
But  in  the  latter  and  unauthorized  form  as  it  now  stands,  it  does  not 
•do  this,  at  least  not  so  clearly ;  but  it  seems  to  be  only  the  prohibi 
tion  of  engaging  in  slave  trading.  And  so  the  rule  was  construed 
by  some  at  the  last  general  conference.  At  what  time  and  by  whom 
this  change  was  made  we  cannot  tell.  Certainly  our  founders  could 
not  have  done  it.  But  this  mutilation  in  favor  of  Slavery  is  only 
one  among  the  many  encroachments  which  this  dark  spirit  has  been 
making  upon  us  for  the  last  forty  years,  until  our  Church  is  now 
.announced  in  open  general  conference — to  the  disgrace  of  Christian- 

*Horne:s  Introd. 


Constitution  of  the  M.  E.  Church  Non-Slaveholding.        27 

ity,  the  scorn  of  European  Christians,  and  the  contempt  of  the  civil 
ized  world — to  be  "constitutionally,  historically  and  administratively, 
a  slaveholding  Church."  It  is  true  the  contradictory  expletive, 
"  though  anti-slavery,"  is  often  thrown  in  the  same  sentence,  but 
what  it  can  mean  in  this  connection,  who  can  tell  ?  For  how  can  a 
religious,  or  any  other  community,  be  properly  anti-slavery,  in  any 
right  sense  of  that  word,  who  have  retained  Slavery  among  them 
for  seventy  years ;  who  have  increased  the  number  of  their  slaves 
frpm  tens  to  tens  of  thousands ;  who,  while  Slavery  is  going  on  in 
full  career,  wish  all,  eyerywhere,  to,  let  it  alone  ;  and  who  will  not 
even  require  her  members  to  give  that  which  is  just  and  equal  to 
their  slaves  ?  While  this  is  the  practice,  the  mere  avowal  of  anti- 
slavery  avails  nothing  in  the  estimation  of  any  one,  except  those 
only  who  seem  to  be  deluding  themselves  by  it. 

The  truth  is,  we  have  nearly,  perhaps  wholly  spent  the  anti-sla 
very  capital  which  our  fathers  left  us.  That  our  Church  was  origi 
nally  anti-slavery,  and  that  she  is  so  still  constitutionally,  we  will 
soon  endeavor  to  show  ;  but  that  she  is  now  anti-slavery  in  her  ad 
ministration,  or  that  she  has  been  so  for  the  last  thirty-five  years, 
we  positively  deny.  We  say  it  in  grief,  but  we  believe  -the  ten 
dency  is  rather  in  the  other  direction.  Apologists  for  the  continu 
ance  of  Slavery  "  under  present  circumstances,"  are  trying  to  take 
advantage  of  their  own  wrong,  trying  to  make  one  wrong  the  justifi 
cation  of  another;  because  a  former  administration  neglected  to 
enforce  the  rules  against  Slavery,  that  the  present  one  may  domicile 
it,  and  plead  "  chartered  rights"  and  "constitutional  rights"  to  hold 
slaves. 

To  talk  of  an  "  Anti-slavery  Church,"  that  has  "  constitutional 
rights"  to  hold  slaves  is  certainly  confusion  confounded.  But  where 
are  those  "  constitutional  rights"  to  be  found  which  are  said  to  allow 
Slavery  in  the  Church  ?  In  what  book,  discipline,  or  paper  are 
they  to  be  seen  '*  We  deny  their  existence  in  toto.  We  will  go  be 
hind  the  above  avowals,  and  show  that  Slavery  is  not  chartered, 
even  in  the  State.  That  even  there  the  holding  of  slaves  was  an 
unwarrantable  assumption,  alike  unauthorized  by  any  charter  or 
constitution  of  either  God  or  man. 

In  the  debate  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  Mr. 
Mason  of  Virginia,  objected  to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Dayton,  pro 
viding  for  a  jury  trial,  because,  said  he:  "If  he  means  by  this,  that 
proof  shall  be  brought  that  Slavery  is  established  by  existing  laws, 
it  is  impossible  to  comply  with  the  requisition.  For  no  such  law 
can  be  produced,  I  apprehend,  in  any  of  the  slave  States.  I  am  not 
aware  that  there  is  a  single  State  in  which  the  institution  is  estab 
lished  by  positive  law."  Now  if  the  early  Methodists  had  made 
constitutional  provision  for  Slavery,  they  would  have  been  in  ad 
vance  in  iniquity  of  any  of  the  old  thirteen  States. 

'•'Rights!  what  Rights!     0  supreme  in  mischief. 
If  wrong  give  rights." 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE     RULE     CONSIDERED     PHI  LOLOGICALLY. 


ENSLAVING  —  ITS  GRAMMATICAL  MEANING  —  RULE  OF  INTERPRETATION — COR 
ROBORATIVE  EVIDENCE  —  How  IT  WAS  UNDERSTOOD  BY  OUR  FOUNDERS  —  ONLY 
CONSISTENT  VIEW  OF  THE  RULE. 


AGAIN  we  return  to  the  exposition  of  the  general  rule.  And  in 
this  rule  there  is  really  but  one  prohibition,  viz. :  that  of  enslaving; 
for  the  buying  or  the  selling  was  not  the  real  prohibition.  They 
were  prohibitory,  but  only  so  in  reference  to  the  real  design  of  the 
rule,  which  was  the  enslaving,  the  holding  of  a  human  being  in  the 
condition  of  a  slave.  This  prohibition  was,  throughout  the  whole, 
the  very  pith  and  purpose  of  the  rule. 

For  if  the  member  bought  for  the  purpose  of  setting  the  slave  at 
liberty,  the  rule  was  not  violated ;  and  as  it  was  impossible  to  free  a 
slave  by  selling  him,  the  same  conference  a  little  before  prohibited 
the  sale  of  a  slave  "  on  any  consideration."  Now,  all  depends  on 
the  meaning  of  the  words  "  to  enslave"  This  form  of  the  verb 
implies:  first,  either  the  commencement  of  an  action;  or,  secondly, 
the  continuation  of  one  already  begun.  In  which  sense  did  the 
founders  of  our  Church  intend  the  words  to  be  understood  ?  If  i» 
the  first,  that  is,  to  commence  the  action,  then  the  rule  only  prohibits 
the  enslaving  of  those  who  are  free ;  and  the  proper  terms  in  that 
case  would  have  been  kidnapping,  or  taking  by  capture. 

Then,  to  violate  the  rule  in  this  sense,  the  member  would  be  under 
the  necessity  of  joining  a  maurauding  party  in  Africa,  or,  by  kidnap 
ping,  must  commit  a  crime  for  which  the  civil  law  would  send  him  to 
the  penitentiary.  It  would  not  even  prevent  a  church  member  from 
engaging  in  the  African  slave  trade  ;  for  American  traders  in  that 
country  almost  always  buy  those  who  are  already  in  a  state  of  Sla 
very.  And  again,  there  is  an  absurdity  in  forbidding  one  to  buy  or 
sell  a  free  man  ;  for,  as  such,  he  is  incapable  of  being  sold  or  purchas 
ed  ;  being  free,  he  is  inalienable,  until  by  capture  or  kidnapping  he 
is  made  a  piece  of  merchandise.  Who,  then,  can  believe  that  the 
founders  of  our  Church  ever  intended  the  wrords  "  to  enslave  "  to  be 
understood  in  the  above  sense  ?  —  in  the  sense  of  commencing  the 
enslaving  of  a  human  being  by  capture  or  by  kidnapping  ? 

If,  then,  they  could  not  have  meant  them  to  be  thus  understood, 
they  must  have  used  them  in  the  only  remaining  sense :  that  is,  to 
continue  the  action  already  begun ;  or  to  prohibit  the  holding  as 


The  Rule  Considered  Philologically.  29 

slaves  those  who  were  already  in  that  condition.  This  must  evidently 
have  been  their  meaning.  For  enslaving  in  general,  in  every  sense, 
appears  to  have  been  the  thing  aimed  at  and  prohibited  by  the 
general  rule.  Then,  according  to  this,  Slavery  was  not  to  come  into 
the  Church,  nor  to  go  out  of  the  Church,  and  by  fair  implication 
and  construction,  was  not  to  have  remained  in  the  Church ;  for  the 
sole  object  of  the  rule  was  directly  and  specifically  against  enslaving— 
against  enslaving  in  every  sense  and  in  every  situation.  Hereditary 
sTavery  may  be  viewed  as  a  running  stream,  the  bitter  waters  of 
which  were  not  to  flow  into  the  holy  temple,  nor  to  issue  from  it,  nor 
to  abide  in  it ;  for  our  fathers  would  not  have  allowed  in  the  Church 
the  same  evil  which  they  denounced  out  of  it ;  for  this  would  be 
claiming  a  monopoly  of  wickedness  in  their  own  community. 

If  the  above  rule  would  not  allow  a  church  member  to  hold  one 
as  a  slave  for  whom  he  had  given,  perhaps,  §500,  surely  it  was  never 
intended  to  allow  the  same  member  to  hold  one  as  a  slave,  born  in 
his  house,  for  whom  he  had  never  paid  one  cent,  and  from  whom  he 
had  had  already  fifteen  or  twenty  years  of  service  for  nothing.  The 
founders  of  our  Church  were  neither  casuists  nor  hair-splitters  in 
morals ;  but  on  the  contrary,  they  laid  down  broad  principles,  and 
intended  that  their  words  should  be  understood  in  their  plain  and 
most  obvious  sense. 

The  buying  and  selling  is  not  really  that  which  the  rule  prohibits. 
"What  is  it,  then?  It  is  the  intention  to  enslave.  The  intention 
constitutes  the  praise  or  the  blame,  the  guilt  or  the  innocence.  For 
instance :  I  buy — thus  far  there  is  no  violation  of  the  rule — but  I 
intend  to  enslave,  to  hold  the  person  whom  I  have  bought  as  a  slave. 
Now,  the  rule  is  broken.  I  inherit  a  slave,  with  or  without  my 
consent.  I  consider;  I  determine.  I  intend  to  hold  the  one  inherited 
as  a  slave.  Now  in  this  case,  I  break  the  law  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  A  child  is  born  in  my  house.  John  Wesley  says, 
Nature  says,  God  says,  that  he  is  free.  The  whole  is  now  with 
me,  for  no  State  law  can  make  me  sin.  I  think  and  I  intend  to  hold 
this  child  as  a  slave.  So  that  the  words  "  to  enslave,"  in  the  rule, 
really  means  the  holding  of  one  as  a  slave. 

The  whole  matter  is  simply  this : — the  founders  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  by  the  rule  in  question,  did  most  evidently  intend 
to  exclude  the  little  amount  of  Slavery  that  had  crept  in  the  Church, 
and  by  it  to  keep  out,  unconditionally  and  forever,  the  introduction 
of  any  more.  That  this  was  their  intention,  is  acknowledged  by 
eminent  men  at  the  South,  as  has  already  been  shown.  The  Eev. 
Dr.  Winans,  in  a  letter  now  before  me,  says  in  so  many  words,  "At 
that  period  [the  organization  of  the  Church]  the  preachers  were 
practical  abolitionists"  And  the  Rev.  Dr.  W.  A.  Smith,  in  a  speech 
before  the  Virginia  conference  of  1844,  says,  "  They  founded  it  [the 
Church]  on  pure  abolition  grounds."  It  is  true  these  gentlemen 
immediately  affirm  that  this  ground  was  abandoned,  and  a  compromise 
was  entered  into ;  but  whether  it  were  a  compromise  or  an  encroach- 


30  The  Rule  Considered  Philologically. 

ment,  their  testimony,  with  a  mass  of  other  evidences,  proves  unequiv 
ocally  that  slaveholding  at  first  was  not  constitutionally  in  the  Church. 

Whether  this  rule  was  properly  carried  out  or  not,  whether  it  had' 
been  enforced  for  one  month  or  for  years,  does  not  in  any  way,  affect 
or  invalidate  its  constitutionality.  It  is  further  evident, 'that  the  first 
preachers  in  executing  the  rule  met  with  difficulties :  it  was  a  new 
rule  of  membership ;  the  people  were  not  fully  informed ;  they  hes 
itated  ;  after  a  while  they  suspended  it,  and  although  they  never 
repealed  it,  they  never  fully  executed  it.  And  this  fact  accounts  for 
the  discrepancy  between  their  sayings  and  doings.  But  the  consti 
tutional  rule  remained  and  does  remain  as  at  first. 

In  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  our  general  rule,  we  need  only  to 
follow  the  most  common  rule  in  interpretation  :  "  when  in  any  ordi 
nary  composition,  a  passage  occurs  of  doubtful  meaning,  the  obvious 
course  of  proceeding  is,  to  examine  what  the  author  has  said  in 
other  parts  of  his  work  on  the  same  subject ;  to  weigh  well  the  force 
of  any  particular  expression  he  is  accustomed  to  use ;  and  to  inquire 
what  there  might  be  in  the  occasion  or  circumstances  under  which 
he  wrote,  tending  to  throw  light  on  the  immediate  subject  he  had  in 
view."  * 

Following  then  this  rule,  let  us  see  what  the  founders  of  our 
Church  have  said  in  other  places  on  the  subject  of  Slavery,  as 
explanatory  of  their  meaning  of  the  general  rule. 

1.  In  the  same  year,  seven  months  before  the  organization  of  our 
Church,  the  conference  held  in  Baltimore,  said,  "  If  they  [the  church 
members]  buy  with  no  other  design  than  to  hold  them  as  slaves,  and 
have  been  previously  warned,  they  shall  be  expelled.     And  permit 
ted  to  sell  on  no  consideration."     This  quotation  is  valuable,  as  it 
must  fix  their  meaning  of  the  words  "  to  enslave  "  in  the  general 
rule.     The  founders  of  our  Church  must  certainly  have  used  the 
words  "  to  enslave  "  and  "  to  hold  as  slaves  "  synonymously,  for  they 
were  both  directed  against  the  same  practice,  at  about  the  same  time, 
and  in  the  same  place.     What  then  can  be  clearer  ? 

2.  Again,  in  the  year  (1784),  in  which  the  Church  was  founded, 
so  far  from  "  leaving  slaveholding  by  inheritance  untouched,"  as 
was  asserted  in  the  last  general  conference,  the  43d  question  reads  : 

"  What  shall  be  done  with  those  who  buy  or  sell  slaves,  or  give 
them  away  ?"  Ans.  "  They  shall  be  expelled  immediately,  unless 
they  buy  on  purpose  to  free  them." 

And  further,  at  the  same  time,  they  instituted  a  series  of  rules  for 
the  entire  extirpation  of  the  mere  sprinkling  of  Slavery  that  had 
crept  into  the  Church.  They  preface  these  rules,  thus : 

"  We,  therefore,  think  it  our  bounden  duty  to  take  some  effectual 
method  immediately  to  extirpate  this  abomination  from  among  us." 

Here  then  follow  the  rules.  How  absurd  then  to  suppose  while 
our  founders  prohibited  the  buying  and  selling,  that  they  intended 
to  allow  "  this  abomination  "  by  inheritance.  The  practice  of  which, 
without  limitations  to  persons  or  to  circumstances,  was  that  very 
thing  which  they  "abominated  and  abhorred."  Now  it  would 
*  Home's  Introduction. 


The  Rule  Considered  Philologically.  31 

certainly  seem  that  these  quotations  must  be  sufficiently  explanatory 
of  their  meaning  of  the  general  rule.     J3ut — 

3.  In  ITS 5,  the  next  year  after  the  adoption  of  the  above  rules, 
the  conference  said,  "  We  do  hold  in  the  deepest  abhorrence  the 
practice  of  Slavery,  and  shall  not  cease  to  seek  its  destruction  by  all 
wise  and  prudent  means."    Here  is  no  Slavery  in  the  abstract ;  here 
are  no  incomprehensible  distinctions  between  Slavery  and  slave- 
holding  under  certain  circumstances,  between  holding  by  purchase, 
by  bequest,  or  by  inheritance. 

The  manner  of  coming  into  the  possession  of  a  slave,  could  not, 
with  them,  alter  the  nature  of  Slavery,  nor  the  intention  to  enslave 
him.  How  can  slaveholding  be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  in  the 
case  of  a  worldly  man,  and  allowable  in  that  of  a  church  member? 
If  it  is  a  crime  in  the  one  case,  is  it  not  equally  so  in  the  other  ? 

4.  Why  was  there  such  a  great  moral  difference  between  the 
buying  and  the  selling  of  a  slave,  that,  on  account  of  the  latter,  the 
member  was  to  be  expelled  immediately  ?     If  the  slave,  before  the 
sale  had  been  held  in  the  same  servile  condition  by  the  church 
member,  that  he  would  be  after  the  sale,  what  great  moral  evil  did 
the  one  who  sold  Jiim  commit  by  transferring  to  another  that  same 
power  which  he  himself  had  been  before  practicing?     It  was  Sla 
very  in  both  cases,  and  the  injury  to  the  slave  was  the  same,  whether 
it  were  inflicted  by  a  saint  or  a  sinner. 

N-ow.  the  only  rational  answer  that  can  be  given  to  these  inquiries 
is,  that  while  the  slave  was  with  the  church  members,  he  was  not  to 
be  held  as  a  slave.  He  was  to  be  treated  as  a  being  who  had  rights, 
and  not  as  a  slave.  It  is  really  preposterous  for  the  apologists  of  the 
present  day  to  assert  that  Slavery  was  constitutionally  domiciled  in 
our  Church  at  her  organization.  It  is  an  arrogant  assumption,  un- 
sustained  by  the  history  and  the  testimony  of  those  times.  Twenty- 
five  years  ago,  F.  T.  Keys,  Esq.,  late  of  Washington  City,  and  highly 
commended  in  the  African  Repository,  and  who  stated  no  doubt 
from  his  own  personal  knowledge,  thus  wrote :  "The  Methodists 
formerly  denounced  Slavery  in  general  terms,  as  it  is  now  [1836],  at 
the  .North.  They  were  not  allowed  by  their  discipline  to  continue 
in  the  Church  if  they  purchased  and  held  slaves.  If  a  member 
purchased  a  slave,  no  matter  under  what  circumstances,  the  matter 
was  brought  before  the  monthly  conference,  and  it  was  there  deter 
mined  how  many  years  service  at  the  usual  rate  of  hire,  would  reim 
burse  the  advance  of  the  master.  And  he  was  no  longer  to  be  a 
slave,  but  a  servant  for  that  time." 

5.  And  yet  other  reasons  show  that  the  words  "  to  enslave,"  of  the 
general  rule  were  intended  to  be  understood  synonymously  with  the 
"holding  as  a  slave,"  may  be  easily  inferred  in  many  ways.     Take 
the  following: — 1.  How  absurd  to  denounce  out  of  the  Church  the 
very  practice  which  is  said  to  have  been  lawful  in  it.    In  the  former, 
it  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  an  abomination,  a  disgrace  to 
the  species,  contrary  to  conscience  and  the  golden  rule.     But  if  it 
was  in  the  latter,  in  the  Church  and  by  inheritance,  then,  according 


32  The  Rule  Considered  Philologically. 

to  these  modern  constitutional  expounders,  the  "  slaveholdiug  was 
allowed  by  the  general  rule,  the  organic  law  of  the  Church,"  and 
consequently  freed  the  holder  from  blame.  2.  This  would  really 
seem  like  creating  a  monopoly  of  Slavery,  or  an  "  abomination  "  in 
the  Church.  And  instead  of  making  it  the  means  of  "  spreading 
bible  holiness  through  the  land,"  it  would  be,  on  the  contrary, 
making  the  Church  a  cage  for  this  unclean  and  hateful  bird  in  which 
to  nestle.  It  would  really  be  making  the  Church  an  asylum  and  a 
resting-place  for  Slavery,  in  which  it  could  multiply  and  abide 
forever.  3.  And  again,  according  to  the  preceding  exposition, 
there  was  an  immense  difference  betwreen  the  condition  of  one  who 
was  purchased  and  one  who  was  inherited.  The  former  was  to  be 
placed  in  the  relation  of  servant  or  ward,  and  to  receive  wages,  or 
that  which  was  just  and  equal  for  his  ransom.  But  not  so  the  latter. 
According  to  the  above  authorities,  the  condition  of  the  one  who 
was  born  in  his  master's  house,  and  to  whom  he  had  given  already 
ten  or  twenty  years'  hard  service  for  nothing,  was  to  remain  un 
touched,  and  he  and  his  children  after  him  were-  to  be  transmitted 
interminably  to  the  fangs  of  Slavery. 

And  this  seems  really  to  be  about  the  views  of  some  Southern 
Methodists.  The  Rev.  J.  A.  Collins  objected  to  the  report  of  the 
last  general  conference  on  Slavery,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  con 
trary  to  the  constitution,  or  the  general  rules  of  the  Church.  He 
says  ';  The  third  answer  in  the  proposed  rule  provides  for  giving 
them  (the  slaves),  such  compensation  as  shall  be  'just  and  equal,' 
and  for  their  proper  treatment.  That,  (says  he),  makes  a  new  test. 
It  changes  entirely  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  It  makes  the 
slave  a  free  man.  (Amen,  said  several.)  I  am  glad  you  say  amen, 
it  gives  your  endorsement  of  what  I  say.  I  say  then,  this  passage 
does,  in  effect,  make  non-slaveholding  a  test  of  membership  in  our 
Church." 

What  a  declaration  is  this  !  So  then  the  positive  commandment 
of  God  to  "  give  that  which  is  just  and  equal,"  is  to  be  set  aside,  as 
if  of  secondary  importance,  because,  according  to  this  false  inter 
pretation,  it  would  conflict  with  an  ecclesiastical  rule  in  making  a 
new  test  of  membership.  And  thus  implying  that  our  founders 
allowed  that  members  might  remain  in  the  Church  who  did  not  give 
that  which  was  just  and  equal,  according  to  God's  word.  And 
further,  that  they  might  abrogate  the  scriptural  rule,  to  establish 
their  own  rule,  while  at  the  same  time,  they  say  that  all  their  rules 
"  are  taught  in  God's  written  word,  which  Is  the  only  and  sufficient 
rule  of  faith  and  practice."  Into  what  absurdities  does  this  dogma 
of  constitutional  slaveholding  drive  its  abettors. 

Now,  where  is  the  person  under  heaven,  not  blinded  by  Slavery, 
who  can  bring  himself  to  believe  that  these  holy  men  who  framed 
our  rules  on  Slavery,  and  who  fastened  the  rule  constitutionally 
upon  the  Church,  ever  intended  that  any  such  construction  shoul'd 
be  put  upon  it?  That  while  they  were  preaching  against  Slavery, 
writing  against  it,  circulating  tracts  against  it,  and  petitioning  for  its 


The  Rule  Considered  Philologically.  33 

abolishment,  that  they  were,  at  the  same  moment,  so  contradictory 
in  their  course,  or  so  indifferent  about  it,  or  so  in  love  with  it,  that 
they  actually  made  constitutional  provisions  for  its  continuance,  and 
so  fastened  it  upon  the  Church,  that  future  Methodists  should  not  be 
able  to  shut  it  out,  unless  they  unsettled  the  whole  frame  work  of 
our  ecclesiastical  establishment  ? 

Or  who  can  believe  that  our  fathers  intended  that  their  rule 
should  be  thus  construed  in  opposition  t;o  God's  word,  so  that  Meth 
odists  might  be  absolved  from  obeying  the  most  obvious  demands  of 
justice  ?  All  these  suppositions  would  be  equal  in  atrocity  to  the 
dispensing  power  of  the  papacy,  setting  their  rule  above  the  com 
mon  law  of  heaven,  and  making  God's  law  of  no  effect  through 
their  ecclesiastical  constitution. 

And  these  are  only  a  few  of  the  absurdities  into  which  this  teach 
ing  of  constitutional  slaveholding  must  necessarily  lead  us. 

Now  wrhat  is  said  in  opposition  to  this  array  of  evidence  ?  1.  "That 
Slavery  has  always  been  in  the  Church."  But  it  has  never  been 
legalized  there;  its*continuance  has  ever  been  under  the  strongest 
protest ;  efforts  from  the  beginning  have  been  put  forth  to  extirpate 
it ;  it  was  wrong  that  our  rules  had  not  been  enforced  against  it 
years  ago.  But  those  who  committed  the  wrong  are  not  authorised 
to  take  advantage  of  this,  their  own  wrong,  and  justify  the  continu 
ance  of  it  at  this  day.  This  would  be  like  arguing  in  a  circle,  mak 
ing  one  wrong  the  reason  for  committing  another  one. 

Again  it  is  said  that  Slavery  is  allowed  by  implication,  thus : 
"  That  the  general  rule  by  prohibiting  the  buying  and  selling,  and 
not  at  the  same  time  prohibiting  the  holding  of  slaves,  does 
thereby  authorize  slaveholding!"  To  which  we  reply:  1.  The 
highest  judicial  authroity  in  all  countries,  including  our  own  until 
very  recently,  have  long  since  decided,  "That  Slavery  can  only 
exist  by  positive  enactment  and  is  never  to  be  inferred."  Thus 
says  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court,  2  Cranch.  p.  390:  "That  where 
rights  are  infringed,  fundamental  principles  are  overthrown,  where 
the  general  system  of  laws  is  departed  from,  the  legislative  inten 
tion  must  be  expressed  with  irresistdble  clearness."  Is  Slavery  thus 
expressed  in  the  general  rule  ? 

2.  But  Slavery  is  not  in  the  rule  even  by  implication.  In  Slavery 
there  are  many  incidents  besides  holding  slaves,  such  as  *Bp.  As- 
bury  mentions,  "the  cutting,  skinning  and  starving  of  slaves."  Now 
we  have  just  as  much  reason  to  say  that  these  are  allowed  in  the 
rule  by  implication  as  we  have  that  holding  is  allowed  there.  But 
3.  To  the  new  doctrine  dragged  in.  to  sustain  Slavery,  viz. :  "  That 
what  the  rule  does  not  prohibit  it  allows."  The  general  rule  on 
profaning  the  Sabbath  forbids  working,  buying,  selling ;  but  at  the 
same  time  it  does  not  forbid  sporting,  hunting,  fishing — does  it  there 
by  authorize  these  ?  In  conclusion,  we  say  that  the  above  sporting, 
<fec.,  are  authorized  by  our  general  rule  in  precisely  the  same  way 
and  to  the  same  extent  that  Slaveholding  is  authorized. 

*  Journal,  vol.  2.  p.  273. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE     RULE     CONSIDERED     ETHICALLY     OR     MORALLY. 


ARTICLES  OF  RELIGION  A  PART  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  OUR  CHURCH  —  No 
ECCLESIASTICAL   RULE    TO    BE    INTERPRETED    IN   OPPOSITION  TO  THEM  —  No 

NEED    OF    A    CHANGE    IN    THE    GENERAL    RULES    TO    EXCLUDE    SLAVERY THE 

REQUISITION  FOR  IT  is  ALREADY  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION  —  SLAVERY  FORBIDDEN 

IN  DETAIL So  UNDERSTOOD  BY  OUR  FOUNDERS No  SPECIAL  LAW  IN  THE 

BIBLE  TO  SUSTAIN  SLAVERY  —  THE  LAW  OF  RECIPROCITY  APPLIES  TO  SLAVES 
—  WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  TEACHES  IN  THE  PREMISES. 


WE  have  already  examined  the  general  rule  on  Slavery,  philo- 
logically.  "We  shall  now  examine  ifc  ethically,  or  perhaps  more 
properly,  according  to  scripture  morality.  As  it  has  been  already 
stated,  the  constitution  of  our  Church  is  comprised  in  her  articles 
of  religion,  general  rules  and  restrictive  regulations.  The  first  is 
certainly  a  part  of  the  constitution  of  our  Church,  and  indeed  it  is 
the  principal  part.  And  consequently  in  every  right  interpretation, 
the  three  are  to  be  taken  together  as  a  unit.  And  if  at  any  time 
a  clause  is  doubtful  in  either  of  the  two,  they  must  always  be  con 
strued  in  agreement  with  the  first ;  for  it  is  most  certain  that  our 
founders  never  intended  that  anything  should  be  in  the  general 
rules  contrary  to  our  articles  of  religion,  and  consequently  to  the 
scriptures. 

In  regard  to  these  general  rules,  our  Church  says,  "  all  of  which 
we  are  taught  of  God  in  his  written  word,  which  is  the  only  rule, 
and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  Here,  nothing  can  be 
more  evident,  than  that  our  fathers  intended  that  their  ecclesiastical 
rules  should  be  construed  by  the  scriptures  the  only  and  sufficient 
rule.  But  where  do  the  scriptures  allow  the  enslaving  of  a  human 
being?  Nowhere.  Who  then  can  believe  that  it  was  their  in 
tention  to  domicile  Slavery  in  the  Church  by  the  general  rules? 
And  in  all  this  controversy  it  is  what  our  founders  intended,  which 
alone  is  of  ecclesiastical  authority. 

It  is  very  remarkable  that  when  the  constitutionality  of  slave- 
holding  by  inheritance  and  otherwise,  was  so  long  under  discussion 
in  the  last  general  conference,  that  there  was  no  reference  to  its  con 
stitutionality  in,view  of  our  articles  of  religion  ;  but  that  on  the  con 
trary,  the  whole  was  argued  and  passed  upon  as  if  there  were  no 
such  article  in  existence,  or  that,  in  this  matter,  they  had  no  author 
ity  in  determining  the  meaning  of  the  rule  on  Slavery,  when,  in  the 
conclusion  to  these  very  rules,  it  is  affirmed  "  that  all  [these  rules] 


The  Rule  Considered  Ethically  or  Morally.  35 

we  are  taught  of  God  in  his  written  word."  But  now  there  is 
nothing  more  natural  and  consistent  than,  that  where  a  clause  is 
doubtful  in  any  document,  that  we  should  go  immediately  to  the 
original  from  which  that  document  is  derived,  and  see  what  it  says 
upon  the  doubtful  point.  So  then  in  this  case.  Our  moral  code  is 
derived  from  the  scriptures.  But-where  do  the  scriptures  allow  the 
hereditary  and  interminable  enslavement  of  a  human  being  ?  And 
it  should  ever  be  remembered,  that  for  the  allowance  of  Slavery 
there  should  be  always  and  everywhere  a  positive  precept ;  for  Sla 
very  being  an  unnatural  state  of  humanity,  always  requires  positive 
law  for  its  existence.  The  judges  of  Europe  and  all  our  judges  in 
this  country,  until  very  recently,  have  decided  thus, '"  that  the  estab 
lishment  of  Slavery  in  every  case  requires  positive  law  for  its  ex 
istence,  and  that  it  is  never  to  be  assumed,  or  to  be  received  by 
implication  or  construction."  Xow  the  same  doctrine  must  obtain, 
in  regard  to  our  discipline.  Such  a  relation  as  that  of  master  and 
slave,  so  abhorrent  to  nature,  and  so  incongruous  to  the  spirit  and 
genius  of  religion, 'certainly  requires  positive  ecclesiastical  enactment 
for  its  existence.  We  never  should,  we  never  will,  allow  its  legal  or 
constitutional  existence  among  us — by  inference — byjmplication — or 
by  construction.  We  should  hold  it,  as  civil  judges  do  in  other  coun 
tries,  to  the  very  letter  of  the  law.  We  mast  have  positive  enact 
ment  for  it.  And  it  certainly  exhibits  rather  a  very,  low  estimate 
of  its  horrid  character,  in  the  opinion  of  so  many  of  our  chief  minis 
ters,  that  it  should  be  allowed  for  one  moment  a  place  among  those 
things  which  may  be  proved  by  construction.  But  in  the  present  case 
we  can  afford  to  be  liberal,  and  then  disprove  its  lawfulness  among  us 
in  any  way.  But  still  those  who  plead,  and  those  who  apologize 
for  the  continuance  of  Slavery  in  the  Church,  are  bound  by  every 
rule  in  law  or  propriety,  to  substantiate  their  claim  by  positive  en 
actment,  in  the  Bible  or  in  the  discipline. 

The  Rev.  J.  A.  Collins  of  Baltimore,  iu  the  last  general  confer 
ence,  argues  thus. — "If  it  (Slavery)  were  an  open  question,  you 
would  find  me  in  the  right  place  and  labouring  at  the  strong  oar." 
And  again— "It  is  argued  that  Christianity  is  hostile  to  Slavery. 
Suppose  we  admit  it ;  we  lose  nothing  by  the  admission."  But  we 
think  far  otherwise  ;  for  as  we  have  shown,  the  moral  code  of  our 
Church  and  Christianity  or  the  scriptures  are  one,  and  the  former 
is  always  to  be  construed  in  agreement  with  the  latter.  And  in 
fixing  the  true  meaning  of  a  disputed  clause  in  the  general  rule,  we 
must  allow  that  the  scriptural  character  of  Slavery  is  an  open 
question,  at  least  so  far  as. to  determine  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
rule  in  the  discipline.  And  that  if  Christianity  is  hostile  to  Slavery, 
the  general  rule  must  be  equally  hostile  to  it,  for  our  fathers  cer 
tainly  never  could  have  intended  that  there  should  be  one  plank 
more  or  less  in  the  latter  that  there  was  not  in  the  former. 

Thus  "  Christianity  is  hostile  to  Slavery."  The  rule  on  Slavery 
is  in  perfect  agreement  with  Christianity  ;  therefore  the  rule  is  hostile 
to  Slavery  to  the  same  extent.  Things  which  agree  with  one  and 


36  The  Rule  Considered  Ethically  or  Morally. 

the  same  thing  must  also  agree  with  each  other.     Into  what  palpable 
absurdities  then  would  the  converse  of  this  interpretation  drive  us  ? 

The  same  eloquent  leader  of  the  South,  in  meeting  the  argument, 
that  the  general  rules  were  not  altered,  when  the  Church  required 
as  a  test  of  membership,  baptism  and  confession  of  faith,  thus  ar 
gues — "We  have  a  constitution.  One  of  our  disciplinary  rules 
teaches  the  necessity  of  baptism  before  admission  into  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  church,  and  another  makes  a  profession  of  faith,  and  these 
are  simply  a  carrying  out  of  the  constitution.  I  submit  that  these 
objections  do  not  hold  in  this  case.  [Slavery?]  There  was  no  ne 
cessity  for  changing  the  general  rule  for  baptism  and  a  confession 
of  faith  before  admission  into  our  societies,  because  the  requisitions 
were  in  the  constitution."  This  reasoning,  in  reference  to  baptism 
and  confession  of  faith  is  very  good. 

And  now  I  purpose  to  prove  by  the  same  kind  of  argument,  that 
non-si aveholding,  whether  by  inheritance  or  otherwise,  should  be 
equally  made  a  test  of  membership  with  the  two  former,  "because 
the  requisition  "  for  it  is  already  in  the  constitution  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  For  the  same  scriptures  which  are  recognized 
by  the  constitution  of  our  Church,  do  require  non-slaveholding  as  a 
test  of  membership,  even  more  explicitly,  more  fully,  and  more  au 
thoritatively,  than  either  or  both  of  the  other  formulas  ;  all  of  which 
must  appear  evident,  thus :  the  essential  property  of  slaveholding 
is  a  right  of  property  in  man  ;  the  absolute  subjection  of  one  will 
to  another,  the  right  to  compel  work  without  wages,  and  all  the  rest. 
Now  every  element  of  which  this  compound  is  made  up,  is  con 
demned  by  the  scriptures,  the  recognized  constitution  of  the  Method 
ist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  most  thorough,  the  most  frequent,  and 
in  the  most  authoritative  manner,  viz : 

"Thou  shalt  not  pervert  the  judgment  of  the  stranger  nor  of  the 
fatherless."  Deut.  xxiv.  17.  "Woe  unto  him  that  buildeth  his  house 
by  unrighteousness,  and  his  chambers  by  wrong;  that  useth  his 
neighbor's  service  without  wages  and  giveth  him  not  for  his  work." 
Jer.  xxii.  13.  "Therefore,  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  unto  you,  do  you  even  so  to  them,  for  this  is  the  law  and 
the  prophets."  Mat,  vii.  12.  Thou  shalt  love 'thy  neighbour  as  thy 
self.  Mat.  xix.  19.  Behold  the  hire  of  the  laborers,  who  have  reaped 
down  your  fields,  which  is  of  you  kept  back  by  fraud,  crieth  :  and 
the  cries  of  them  which  have  reaped,  are  entered  into  the  ears  of 
the  Lord  of  Sabaoth."  James  v.  4. 

Now  these,  and  a  multitude  of  other  quotations  which  might  have 
been  transcribed,  comprise  the  common  law  of  God's  moral  govern 
ment.  They  were  always  kept  before  the  people,  and  will  be  in 
force  to  the  end  of  time.  They  are  repeated  almost  every  where 
from  Moses  to  the  Apostle  James.  They  are  not  local  nor  sectional ; 
they  belong  to  the  whole  family  of  man,  and  to  every  individual  in 
that  family,  irrespective  of  nation,  color  or  condition.  They  are  as 
applicable  to  the  poor  slave  in  the  rice  swamp  of  South  Carolina,  or 
on  the  cotton  field  of  Mississippi  as  to  any  other  individual  on  God's 
earth. 


The  Rule  Considered  Ethically  or  Morally.  37 

Now,  therefore,  is  not  the  Christian  Church  of  every  name,  under 
as  high  an  obligation,  to  carry  out  and  enforce  the  plainest,  the  most 
obvious  commandments  of  moral  right  and  common  honesty,  as  it  is 
to  require  the  observance  of  even  the  essential  forms  of  Christianity  ? 
Or,  in  other  words ;  as  baptism  and  confession  of  faith  are  essential 
parts  of  Christianity,  they  should  therefore  be  observed  and  avowed, 
as  tests  of  membership.  So,  also,  as  tt<w-slaveholding,  (which  is  in 
itself,  simply  the  "  giving  of  that  which  is  just  and  equal"  to  all  men, 
and  which  is  only  the  observing  and  the  keeping  of  the  common 
law  of  God,  and  which  common  law  is  an  essential  part  of  Christi 
anity),  so,  therefore,  non-slaveholding,  together  with  baptism  and 
confession  should  be  made  a  test  of  Church  membership,  without 
any  alteration  of  the  general  rule ;  because  the  requisition  for  it  is 
already  in  the  moral  constitution  of  our  Church.  If  we  pay  the 
tithe  of  mint  and  cumin,  we  should  not  omit  the  weightier  matters 
of  the  law — judgment,  mercy  and  faith.  But  to  prove  the  rightful- 
ness  of  non-slaveholding  is  like  trying  to  prove  the  truth  of  an  axiom. 

And  this  was  most  evidently  the  view  which  was  entertained  on 
this  subject,  by  the  founders  of  onr  Church,  who  in  express  terms 
say.*  "We  are  deeply  conscious  of  the  impropriety  of  making  new 
terms  of  communion  for  a  religious  society  already  established, 
except  on  the  most  pressing  occasion  ;  and  such  we  esteem  the  prac 
tice  of  holding  our  fellow  creatures  in  slavery.  We  view  it  as 
contrary  to  the  golden  law  of  God  on  which  hangs  all  the  law  and 
the  prophets,"  and  we  may  add  the  general  rules,  the  moral  code 
of  our  Church.  And  so  they  immediately  set  about  making  the 
latter  to  conform  with  the  former. 

They  called  this  a  new  term  of  membership;  but  according  to 
their  reasoning  it  was  an  old  one,  as  old  as  the  golden  law  of  God, 
on  which  our  general  rule  on  Slavery  was  founded.  In  reality  it 
was  a  new  application  of  an  old  rule,  to  keep  out  of  the  Church  an 
evil  with  which  Methodism  had  never  before  come  into  collision. 
And  "  the  occasion  was  so  pressing"  that  they  could  not  for  a  mo 
ment  hesitate  to  enforce  it ;  that  is,  the  moral  law  of  God  must  be 
enforced,  although  it  should  set  aside  all  their  former  ecclesiastical 
canons,  and  oblige  them  to  begin  anew,  on  a  basis  that  was  in  agree 
ment  with  God's  written  word.  Unlike  the  reasons  at  the  late  gene 
ral  conference,  as  soon  as  they  saw  that  Slavery  was  hostile  to  Chris 
tianity,  they  immediately  made  the  ecclesiastical  rule  conform  to 
the  moral  obligations  of  Christianity,  even  to  the  immediate  rejec 
tion  of  their  former  rules.  This  was  only  a  plain  common  sense 
course,  and  such  a  one,  as  every  Church,  professing  Christianity  is 
bound  to  pursue.  It  is  worse  than  mere  folly,  it  is  deistical,  or 
atheistical  to  interpret  the  claims  of  morality  without  a  reference 
to  the  Bible.  Where  would  this  lead  us  ?  To  Infidelity,  or  directly 
to  Romanism,  setting  up  ecclesiastial  law  above  the  Divine  laws. 
Both  these  forms  of  error,  together  with  the  advocacy,  or  the  defense 
of  Slavery  under  any  circumstances,  alike  set  up  their  respective 
dogmas  rather  than  the  Bible  as  their  standard  of  moral  action. 
*His.  Discipline,  p.  43. 


38  The  Rule  Considered  Ethically  or  Morally. 

EVERT  ELEMENT  OF  SLAVERY  FORBIDDEN  IN  DETAIL. — But  after 
all  an  objector  may  say,  "that  the  general  rule  does  not  prohibit 
slaveholding,  nor  do  the  scriptures  themselves  forbid  it  in  express 
terms."  The  same  may  be  said  of  many  other  sins  of  a  com 
pounded  character,  as  of  war,  gambling,  suicide,  and  many  others. 
But  observe,  every  element  of  which  these  are  made  up,  and  Slavery 
among  them,  is  condemned  in  the  Bible  often  and  repeatedly,  in  the 
most  solemn  and  authoritative  manner.  Suppose  a  physician  after 
a  minute  examination  should  say  that  every  limb  and  organ  of  the 
patient  was  diseased,  that  from  the  sole  of  the  foot  to  the  crown  of 
his  head  there  was  no  soundness  in  him,  but  that  he  was  full  of 
wounds  and  sores.  What  would  we  think  of  one  who,  after  all  this, 
would  affirm,  that  the  man  was  not  sick,  because  the  physician  had 
not  said,  in  express  terms  that  he  was  sick?  But  the  physican  has 
said,  that  he  wras  sick,  far  more  thoroughly  in  his  detailed  account 
of  him,  than  he  could  possibly  have  done  by  the  use  of  any  two  or 
more  express  terms.  And  so  it  is  of  Slavery  in  every  case.  For 
every  element  of  which  it  is  made  up,  is  condemned  in  detail,  in  the 
scriptures  in  the  most  emphatic  and  alarming  manner.  There  is  not 
one  item  in  this  God-dishonoring  compound,  that  is  not  denounced 
under  the  most  tremendous  penalties. 

Finally,  if  these  objectors  will  not  believe  what  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  what  Christ  and  his  apostles  have  said  against  injustice, 
extortion,  and  consequently  against  Slavery,  they  would  not  believe, 
if  one  were  to  rise  from  the  dead  and  tell  them  in  express  terms  that 
slaveholding  is  sinful. 

No  SPECIAL  LAW  TO  SUSTAIN  SLAVERY. — But  another  objector 
may  ask  —  Is  there  not  a  special  law  between  master  and  slave, 
apart  from  the  common  law  of  reciprocity  between  other  men, 
which  makes  it  obligatory  on  the  slave  to  work  without  wages  ;  and 
which,  consequently,  confers  on  the  master  a  moral  right  to  require 
it ;  and  which,  also,  allows  the  Church  to  sanction  and  to  continue 
this  practice?  We  emphatically  say,  No;  there  is  no  such  law.  If 
there  is,  slaveholders  and  their  apologists  are  bound  to  present  it. 
Where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  By  whom  was  it  given  ?  And  when  and 
where  did  God  change  the  common  law  of  Heaven  in  favor  of  the 
slaveholder  and  against  the  slave  ? 

It  is  true  that  in  the  New  Testament,  God  requires  the  Christian 
slave  to  serve  his  heathen  master ;  not  that  the  latter  has  any  right 
to  the  service,  for  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  of  such  a  right  on 
his  part.  But  that  the  service  from  the  slave  should  be  rendered 
for  a  specific  purpose,  "that  the  name  of  God  or  his  gospel.be  not 
blasphemed;"  that  it  should  not  be  spoken  against  by  the  heathen 
master,  who  as  yet  had  no  correct  idea  of  Christian  morality,  and  who 
was  not  yet,  in  'his  present  state  of  ignorance,  prepared  to  act  upon 
its  holy  principles.  And  further,  it  was  certainly  intended  that  this 
unbounded  generosity  on  the  part  of  the  slave  should  be  the  means  of 
melting  down  his  master,  by  contrasting  it  with  his  own  sordid  covet- 
ousness,  and  this  way  to  induce  him  finally  to  give  liberty  to  the  slave. 


The  Rule  Considered  Ethically  or  Morally.  39 

The  whole  requirement  of  the  slave's  service  was  on  the  prin 
ciple  of  "turning  the  other  cheek,"  the  doing  of  good  for  evil. 
But  this  was  no  more  of  an  acknowledgement  that  it  was  right  for 
the  master  to  receive  it  without  compensation,  than  that  the  per 
secutor  had  a  right  to  give  the  blow  because  the  Christian  was  to 
turn  the  other  cheek. 

But  it  should  be  observed  that  this  specific  purpose  was  not  re 
quired  of  those  who  had  "believing  masters,"  as  we  have  already 
shown,  for  there  was  no  need  of  it,  the  masters  being  already 
Christians.  Another  class  of  duties  was  assigned  to  them,  and  such 
a  class  too  as  was  really  inconsistent  with  the  existence  of  the  rela 
tion  of  master  and  slave.  I.  Tim.  vi  2. 

The  enormous  error,  that  God  has  somehow  or  somewhere,  under 
"  certain  circumstances,"  repealed  the  common  law  of  his  govern 
ment,  or  made  the  slave  an  exception  to  it ;  and  that,  at  the  same 
time,  he  has  released  the  master  from  the  golden  rule  of  reciprocity, 
seems  to  underlie  all  the  reasonings  in  the  north  and  south,  of 
those  who  plead  for  the  continuance  of  Slavery  in  the  Church.  They 
readily  acknowledge  that  free  men,  or  men  in  general,  are  entitled 
to  the^  benefits  of  God's  common  law,  but  they  seem  strangely  to 
think  that  the  slave  is  not  entitled  to  it. 

Xow  there  was  a  time  when  every  slave,  or  the  ancestors  of  every 
slave,  in  our  country  was  free,  and  according  to  universal  concession 
they  were  at  that  time  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  of  this  law,  in  com 
mon  with  the  entire  race  of  man.  But  according  to  the  above  error, 
whenever  the  captor  or  the  kidnapper  shall  have  knocked  down  a 
free  man.  and  shall  have  made  him  a  slave,  then,  because  he  is  a 
-lave,  God  withdraws  his  usual  protection  from  him,  places  him  be 
yond  the  pale  of  his  common  law,  and  thus  allows  the  kidnapper 
who  has  committed  one  stupendous  wrong  upon  him,  to  take  the 
advantage  of  this,  his  own  wrong,  and  then  to  compel  this  captured 
man  and  all  his  posterity,  to  work  for  him,  or  his  assigns,  intermin 
ably  without  wages.  And  again,  because  this  poor  slave  is  now  a 
slave,  he  is  to  serve  with  fear  and  trembling,  not  merely  in  obedience 
to  God  on  the  principle  of  doing  good  for  evil,  but  because  there  is 
a  moral  right  vested  in  this  kidnapper,  arising  out  of  his  relation  to 
him  as  his  slave  ;  and  then  again,  to  facilitate  and  legalize  the  whole 
business,  God  releases  this  kidnapper,  and  all  other  slaveholders,  from 
giving  to  this  poor,  injured  slave  "that  which  is  just  and  equal." 
And  then  again,  to  divinely  sanction  the  whole,  the  Church  refuses 
to  him  the  ordinary  rights  of  membership,  and  places  him  under 
the  unwritten  code  of  Slavery,  which  dooms  him  and  his  posterity 
to  hopeless  bondage. 

Xow  these  are  only  a  few  of  the  results  which  would  arise  out  of 
the  supposition  that  "God  has  abrogated  his  laws  against  the  slave, 
and  that  he  has  instituted  special  ones  to  uphold  Slavery.  Into  what 
palpable  absurdities  will  the  plea  for  the  continuance  of  Slavery, 
under  certain  circumstances,  drive  us  i 


40  The  Rule  Considered  Ethically  or  Morally. 

But  no  interpretation  of  scripture  can  be  the  right  one,  which 
violates  the  fundamental  principles  of  morality ;  principles  which 
are  so  often  repeated,  and  which  are  so  universally  enforced  through 
out  the  entire  scriptures.  But  the  requirements  of  slaveholding  are 
continually  violating  these  fundamental  principles,  and  must  forever 
violate  them  while  it  exists. 

Finally,  the  Bible,  as  a  book  of  principles.     It  teaches — 

1.  The  parental  unity  of  the  human  race. 

2.  The  equality  of  right  among  all  God's  creatures.     Not  the 
equality  of  condition,  for  no  two  things  are  alike,  but  the  equality 
of  right,  which  by  the  order  of  God  belongs  to  every  individual. 
That  is,  if  one  is  born  with  but  half  sight,  he  should  have  the  right 
of  making  the  best  use  of  his  half,  that  others  have  of  using  their 
whole  sight. 

3  That  no  condition  but  crime,  as  John  Wesley  affirms,  can  ever 
deprive  any  human  being  of  this  right.  It  is  in  him,  and  it  inures  to 
him  as  essentially  and  as  universally  as  extension  and  ponderosity 
belong  to  a  stone.  No  compact  of  state  or  country  can  deprive  him 
of  it. 

4.  That  this  law  of  God  is  universal  in  its  claims.  It  knows 
nothing  of  state  lines  or  geographical  limits.  It  holds  that  it  is  as 
wrong  to  make  a  man  work*  without  wages  on  the  Mississippi  as  it 
is  on  the  Hudson.  This  law  has  no  class  legislation  in  it.  It  has 
not  in  it  one  for  the  master  and  another  for  the  slave.  And  finally, 
it  is  as  immutable  as  God  its  author.  Thus  it  is  beautifully  set  forth 
by  Mr.  Wesley.  "  The  law  of  God  is  a  copy  of  the  eternal  mind, 
a  transcript  of  the  divine  nature  :  yea,  it  is  the  fairest  offspring  of 
the  everlasting  Father,  the  brightest  efflux  of  his  essential  wisdom, 
the  visible  beauty  of  the  most  High."  And,  thank  heaven,  this  law 
is  as  much  for  the  poor  slave  as  it  is  for  any  creature  in  God's  crea 
tion,  and  consequently  they  who  deprive  him  of  its  benefits,  must 
answer  for  it  to  his  God  at  the  great  assizes. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE   RULE    CONSIDERED    HISTORICALLY. 


HISTORICAL  CIRCUMSTANCES  NECESSARY  TO  A  RIGHT  EXPOSITION— SPIRIT  OF 

THE   TlMES  WHEN  THE  RULE  WAS  INSTITUTED PRINCIPLES    OF    FREEDOM 

PREDOMINANT* —  CONGRESS  OF  1774  —  STATESMEN  —  JEFFERSON  — VIRGINIA 
—  GEORGIA  —  PRESBYTERIANS  —  BAPTISTS  —  IF  THE  METHODISTS  HAD  TOLE 
RATED  SLAVERY  THEY  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  BEHIND  ALL  OTHERS. 


As  has  been  promised,  we  will  consult  the  history  of  the  times 
when  the  rule  on  Slavery  was  originated,  and  see  what  light  it  af 
fords  in  fixing  its  true  meaning.  Like  the  doctrines  of  the  holy 
scriptures,  the  meaning  of  the  rule  in  question  does  not  wholly  de 
pend  on  the  criticism  of  points  and  particles  in  grammar.  There  is 
a  great  amount  of  historical,  internal  and  collateral  evidence  to  sub 
stantiate  the  exposition  which  we  have  given  of  it.  Historical  cir 
cumstances  are  always  a  great  help,  and  sometimes  absolutely  ne 
cessary  to  a  correct  understanding  of  an  author,  or  a  document.  To 
give  a  right  interpretation,  one  should  be  well  acquainted  with  the 
occasion  which  gave  rise  to  the  writing.  What  was  the  design  of 
the  author  in  setting  it  forth  ?  What  was  to  be  accomplished  by  it  ? 
And  if  a  law  or  rute,  what  duty  was  to  have  been  enforced  ?  Or 
what  evil  was  to  have  been  avoided  ?  Indeed,  the  design  should 
not  only  be  well  considered  and  known,  but  also  the  animus,  the 
public  spirit  which  pervaded  the  community  at  the  time  the  rule  or 
law  was  enacted.  Not  following  this  rule  of  interpretation,  and  not 
considering  the  spirit  and  the  history  of  the  period  in  which  the  rule 
in  question  was  formed,  many  brethren  have  committed  egregious 
mistakes  in  their  construction  of  our  general  rule.  They  seem  to 
have  interpreted  the  language  of  our  fathers,  two  generations  back 
or  more  than  seventy  years  ago,  who  were  surrounded  by  an  at 
mosphere,  at  once  pure  and  exhilarant  with  the  spirit  of  universal 
liberty,  by  the  general  sentiment  of  the  present  times,  which  has 
been  most  unhappily  poisoned  by  the  miasmal  influences  of  a  sel 
fish  and  money-loving  age.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  these  brethren 
had  not  the  spirit  of  their  fathers,  and  consequently  were  unable 
rightly  to  interpret  their  real  meaning. 

Methodism  commenced  her  glorious  career  in  our  country  on  the 
eve  of  our  Revolution.  At  a  time  when  the  principles  of  civil 
liberty  was  stirring  up  the  whole  nation,  when  there  was  an  unusual 
outcry  against  tyranny  and  oppression  of  every  kind.  And,  al- 

4 


42  The  Rule  Considered  Historically. 

though,  the  poof  slave  was  not  considered  as  he  should  have  been, 
for  he  should  have  been  set  free  at  once,  yet  the  reflective  influences 
;upon  him  were  neither  few  nor  inconsiderable.  For  while  the 
Colonists  were  struggling  to  assert  their  own  rights,  it  was  impossi- 
3>le  for  them,  not  to  contrast  the  claims  of  the  slave  with  those  of 
:  their  own. 

There  never  was  a  more  propitious  field  for  religious  cultivation 
than  tliat  which  our  country  presented  at  the  organization  of  our 
Church.  The  whole  land  was  before  them  unincumbered,  and  at 
the  South  almost  unoccupied.  The  ecclesiastical  burdens  and  semi- 
pagan  establishments  of  the  old  world,  either  had  not  been  founded, 
or  they  had  been  swept  away  by  the  Revolution.  The  field  every 
where  was  already  white  for  the  harvest. 

We  .boast, -and  very  justly  too,  of  what  great  things  God  has  done 
'through  the  agency  of  the  Methodists  in  the  United  States,  but  I 
&ave  no  doubt  the  future  historian  of  our  Church,  will  tell  what 
greater  achievements  might  have  been  accomplished,  had  our 
Church  persisted,  as  she  began,  in  preaching  a  full  and  unrestrained 
gospel — had  she  continued  as  in  the  apostolic  times,  to  place  both 
master  and  slave  under  the  same  ecclesiastical  rule,  or  even  if  she 
had  only  carried  out  the  requisition  of  the  conference  of  1787,  "  to 
exercise  among  them  (the  slaves)  the  whole  Methodist  discipline." 

The  former  state  of  public  opinion  on  the  slave  question  ought  to 
be  more  fully  known.  It  would  enable  us  to  comprehend  the  spirit 
which  animated  our  fathers,  and  consequently  help  us  the  better  to 
interpret  the  real,  meaning  of  their  words.  We  will  present  a  few 
proofs  on  this  point  drawn  from  the  public  documents  of  our  coun 
try,  which  were  put  forth  about  the  time  of  the  organization  of  our 
Church. 

In  the  First  General  Congress  of  the  Colonies  in  Philadelphia, 
1774,  in  asserting  the  rights  of  British  America,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
laid  before  them  a  paper  from  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 

"  The  abolition  of  domestic  Slavery  is  the  greatest  object  of  desire 
in  these  Colonies,  where  it  was  unhappily  introduced  in  their  infant 
State.  But  previous  to  the  enfranchisement  of  the  slaves,  it  is  ne 
cessary  to  exclude  further  importations  from  Africa.  Yet  our  re 
peated  attempts  to  effect  this  have  been  defeated  by  his  majesty's 
negative." 

The  Virginia  Convention  about  the  same  time  adopted  the  follow 
ing  resolution : 

u  Resolved,  We  will  neither  ourselves  import,  nor  purchase  any 
slaves  imported  by  any  other  person,  after  the  first  day  of  Novem 
ber  next." 

Most  of  the  Colonies  accorded  most  heartily  to  this  resolution ; 
and  the  representatives  of  Darien  in  the  Colony  of  Georgia,  said : 

u  To  show  the  world  that  we  are  not  influenced  by  any  interested 
motives,  but  by  general  philanthropy  for  all  mankind  of  what  ever 
climate,  language,  or  complexion,  we  hereby  declare  our  disappro 
bation  and  abhorrence  to  the  unnatural  practice  of  Slavery  in 
America." 


The  Rule  Considered  Historically.  43 

And  again,  the  Continental  Congress  in  1779, 'ordered  a  pamph 
let  to  be  published,  entitled,  "Observations  on  the  American  Revo 
lution" — of  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 

"  The  great  principle  (of  government)  is,  and  ever  will  remain  in 
force,  that  men  are  by  nature  free,  as  accountable  to  Him  who  made 
them.  They  must  be  so  for  so  long  as  we  have  any  idea  of  Divine 
justice,  we  must  associate  that  of  human  freedom — it  is  conceded  on  all 
hands  that  the  right  to  be  free  can  never  be  alienated."  Again, 
about  this  time,  Mr.  Jefferson  wrote  his  Notes  on  Yirginia,  through-' 
out  which  he  denounces  Slavery,  and  has  transmitted  to  us  the  abo 
lition  feeling  which  was  every  where  rising  in  his  day. 

"  I  think,"  he  says, "  a  change  is  already  perceptible  since  the  origin 
of  the  present  Revolution.  The  spirit  of  the  master  is  abating,  that 
of  the  slave  is  rising  from  the  dust,  his  condition  is  modifying,  and 
the  way  I  hope,  is  preparing,  under  the  auspices  of  heaven,  for  a 
total  emancipation"  In  most  of  the  States  there  were  Abolition 
societies  at  this  time;  at  the  head  of  which  was  Benjamin  Franklin. 

The  testimony  for  the  abolition  of  human  Slavery,  about  the 
time  that  our  Church  was  founded,  from  men  high  in  office  and 
out  of  office,  was  so  abundant  that  we  could  fill  books  with  mere 
extracts  from  their  writings.  We  will  close,  however,  this  item  in 
our  argument  by  an  extract  from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Leigh,  in  the 
Yirginia  Convention  of  1832  : 

"  I  thought  till  lately,"  he  said,  "  that  it  was  known  to  every  body 
that,  during  the  Revolution,  and  for  many  years  after,  the  abolition 
of  Slavery  was  a  favorite  topic  with  many  of  our  ablest  statesmen, 
who  entertained  with  respect  all  the  schemes  for  its  accomplishment." 

But  it  was  not  only  the  testimony  of  statesmen  and  political  bodies 
which  were  put  forth,  but  also  that  of  nearly  all  the  ecclesiastical 
ones  of  that  day.  In  1794:,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyte 
rian  Church  added  a  note  to  the  142d  question  in  the  Larger  Cate 
chism  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

I.  Tim.  i.  10 — "  The  law  is  made  for  man-stealers"  Then  the 
Catechism  explains.  "  This  crime,  among  the  Jews,  exposed  the 
perpetrator  of  it  to  capital  punishment,  (Exodus  xxi.  16);  and  the 
Apostle  here  classes  them  with  sinners  of  the  first  rank.  The  word 
he  uses,  in  its  original  import,  comprehends  all  who  are  concerned 
in  bringing  any  of  the  human  race  into  slavery,  or  retaining  them 
in  it.  Ilominum  fures,  qui  servos,  vel  libros  abducunt,  retinent, 
vendunt,  vel  emunt.  '  Stealers  of  men  are  those  who  bring  off  slaves 
or  freemen,  and  keep,  sell  or  ~buy  them?  To  steal  a  freeman,  says 
Grotius,  is  the  highest  kind  of  theft.  In  other  instances  we  steal 
only  human  property,  but  when  we  steal  or  retain  men  in  slavery, 
we  seize  those  who,  in  common  with  ourselves,  are  constituted  by 
the  original  grant  lords  of  the  earth."  This  was  a  noble  testimony 
and  covered  the  whole  ground.  And  the  Baptists  of  that  day  were 
even  before  their  brethren,  the  Presbyterians,  in  their  testimony 
against  Slavery. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  General  Committee  of  the  Baptists  of  Yir 
ginia,  in  1788,  the  following  point  came  up  : 


44  The  Rule  Considered  Historically. 

"  Whether  a  Petition  should  be  referred  to  the  General  Assem 
bly,  praying  that  the  yoke  of  slavery  may  be  made  more  tolerable? 
Referred  to  the  next  session. 

"  1T89.  At  this  session  the  propriety  of  hereditary  slavery  was 
taken  up,  and  after  some  time  employed  in  the  consideration  of  the 
subject,  the  following  resolution  was  offered  by  Eld.  John  Leland, 
and  adopted. 

,  "  Resolved,  That  Slavery  is  a  violent  deprivation  of  the  rights  of 
nature,  and  inconsistent  with  republican  government,  and  therefore 
(we)  recommend  it  to  our  brethren  to  make  use  of  every  measure  to 
extirpate  this  horrid  evil  from  the  land,  and  pray  Almighty  God 
that  our  honorable  Legislature  may  have  it  in  their  power  to  pro 
claim  the  great  jubilee."* 

Now  who  can  believe  that  while  the  abolition  of  Slavery  "  was  a 
favorite  topic  among  statesmen  of  the  South,  and  the  great  desire  of 
the  Colonies,"  and  when  it  was  pressed  and  urged  by  the  Baptists  of 
Virginia,  and  the  Presbyterians  in  their  General  Assembly — who,  I 
say,  can  believe  that,  at  that  time,  Francis  Asbury,  with  his  little  band 
of  God-fearing,  self-denying  men,  should  have  set  down,  and  should 
have  deliberately  nullified  all  their  former  declarations  against 
Slavery? — or  that  they  should  have  so  adjusted  the  general  rule,  as 
to  legalize  slaveholding  by  inheritance  ? — and  that  too,  almost  imme 
diately  after  John  Wesley,  whom  they  followed  more  closely  than 
any  other  uninspired  man,  had  just  published  his  Tract  on  Slavery, 
in  which  he  said,  addressing  himself  to  the  holders  of  slaves,  whether 
by  inheritance  or  otherwise,  "  You  are  the  spring  that  puts  all  the 
rest  [the  kidnappers  and  the  slave  traders]  in  motion.  Without  you 
they  would  not  stir  one  step."  And  then  immediately  he  adds,  "  at 
any  price,  deliver  thyself  from  blood-guiltiness.  Thy  hands,  thy 
bed,  thy  furniture,  thy  house,  thy  lands,  are  at  present  stained  with 
blood." 

*  Now,  who  can  believe  that  these  holy  men,  so  circumstanced, 
so  impelled  by  the  anti-slavery  spirit  that  surrounded  them,  could 
ever  have  belied  all  their  former  avowals,  and  could  have  framed  a 
rule  that  would  fasten  Slavery  in  perpetuity  upon  the  Church? 
Why,  the  very  men  of  the  world  at  that  period  would  have  shamed 
them  for  doing  so.  The  framers  of  the  constitution  of  the  general 
government  would  not  allow  the  word  "slave"  to  be  even  named  in  it. 
They  "  thought  that  it  was  wrong  to  admit  in  the  constitution,  the 
idea  that  there  could  be  property  in  man."  But,  according  to  some, 
(those  modern  constitutional  expounders  at  Indianapolis),  our  fathers 
very  readily  admitted  both: — and  that  this  admission,,  viz.,  the 
right  to  hold  slaves,  was  so  important,  that  shortly  afterwards  they 
fastened  it  upon  future  generations  by  an  organic  law,  so  that  nothing 
but  an  entire  change  in  the  whole  frame-work  of  the  body,  could 
release  future  Methodists  from  continuing  that  very  thing  which  a 
little  while  before  they  had  called,  emphatically,  "an  abomination. 
a  complicated  and  execrable  crime." 

Facts  for  Baptist  Churches,  p.  365. 


The  Rule  Considered  Historically.  45 

Why,  if  the  founders  of  our  Church  had  made  constitutional  pro 
vision  to  continue  slavery,  by  inheritance  or  under  any  circum 
stances  whatever,  they  would  have  been  immensely  behind  the  age 
in  which  they  lived,  and  they  would  have  been  despised  or  repro 
bated  for  doing  so.  Had  they  had  no  moral  principle  in  regard  to 
slaveholding,  it  would  have  been  most  impolitic  for  them  to  have 
incorporated  such  a  rule  for  its  perpetuity.  They  would,  by  it,  have 
insulted  the  moral  sensibility  of  the  whole  country,  and  they  would 
have  fixed  an  indelible  stigma  upon  the  very  cause  which  they  were 
laboring  to  build  up.  No  ane,  who  duly  considers  the  spirit  and 
circumstances  of  the  times  in  which  our  Church  was  founded,  can 
reasonably  suppose  that  the  rule  on  Slavery  was  inserted  for  any 
other  purpose  than  the  entire  extirpation  of  Slavery  from  our  com 
munion. 

Had  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  made  any  such  provision  for 
the  continuance  of  this  great  evil,  by  inheritance  or  other  circum 
stances,  she  never  would  have  acquired  the  reputation  which  she  had 
for  so  many  years  afterwards,  by  both  friends  and  foes,  at  the  North 
and  at  the  South,  as  "  the  most  deadly  opponent  to  Slavery,"  as 
"denouncing  it  as  they  do  now  at  the  North."  Nor  would  the 
most  pro-slavery  men  of  our  day  have  so  readily  acknowledged, 
"  that  the  Methodists  of  that  period  were  practically  abolitionists." 

The  farther  consideration  of  the  rule  historically,  can  be  better 
treated  in  distinct  chapters,  by  showing  the  grounds  on  which  the 
rule  was  suspended,  and  the  various  means  which  the  early  Meth 
odists  used  for  the  extirpation  of  Slavery. 

Now,  in  regard  to  constitutional  slaveholding  in  our  Church,  the 
sum  is  this : 

1.  For  its  existence  there  is  nothing  positive  in  the  discipline ; 
all  is  "by  mere  implication.     All  judges  in  Europe,  and  our  own  in 
this  country,  until  very  recently,  have  decided  "  that  such  an  un 
natural  condition  of  society,  can  only  exist  by  positive  law,  and  that 
it  must  never  be  received  by  implication  or  inference." 

2.  To  say  the  least  of  it,  the  rule  is  capable  of  an  interpretation 
which  amounts  to  a  prohibition,  viz. :  it  prohibits  enslaving  without 
modification  or  limitation. 

3.  All  the  antecedents  and  historical  circumstances  of  the  times 
when  our  Church  was  founded,  are  against  this  asserted  constitution 
ality  to  hold  slaves. 

4.  The  whole  scope  and  design  of  the  origination  of  the  rule  is 
equally  against  it ;  they  were  to  extirpate  it,  not  to  continue  it  under 
any  circumstances. 

5.  And  until  the  present  generation,  the  general  rule  had  never 
been  considered  a  barrier  to  the  entire  extirpation  of  Slavery  from 
our  Church.    The  constitutional  objection  is  an  after  thought. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


SUSPENSION. 


PROHIBITORY  RULE  —  ITS  EXCEPTIONS  —  ITS  SUSPENSION — MORALLY  IT  WAS 
NOT  SUSPENDED  —  ITS  ENFORCEMENT  WAS  ONLY  CARRYING  OUT  THE  COMMON 
LAW  OF  GOD'S  GOVERNMENT — WHAT  LED  TO  THE  SUSPENSION  —  ITS  EFFECTS 
ON  THE  CHURCH — WHAT  THE  SLAVE  LOST  BY  IT  —  IN  MANY  CASES  IT  WAS 
ENFORCED  —  AT  THE  SOUTH,  THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  WHAT  WTAS  RIGHT  LEFT  TO 
THE  ADMINISTRATOR  AND  THE  CONSCIENCE  OF  THE  MASTER. 


THE  rules  and  declarations  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
those  days,  were  not  intended  to  have  been  mere  sentimentalisms 
in  the  discipline.  The  Methodists  were  then  the  most  practical 
people  of  the  age.  It  was  generally  said  of  them,  that  their  religion 
was  "  up  and  be  doing."  What  they  conceived  to  be  their  duty  to 
God,  they  usually  carried  out  with  great  energy  and  directness. 

In  1Y80,  they  began  their  battle  with  Slavery,  and  put  forth  that 
noble  declaration  "  that  Slavery  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God." 
Four  years  afterwards,  the  year  in  which  our  Church  was  organized, 
they  instituted  "  an  effectual  method  to  extirpate  this  abomination 
from  among  us."  This  method  was  ordained,  not  only  to  remove 
the  last  vestige  of  Slavery  from  the  Church,  but  also  to  erect  against 
it  such  a  barrier  that  it  could  never  again  return  to  it.  And  after 
devising  a  plan  for  immediate  and -gradual  emancipation,  they  or 
dered  among  other  matters  the  following : 

3.  "  That  every  person  concerned  who  would  not  comply  with 
these  rules,  shall  have  liberty  quietly  to  withdraw  from  our  societies 
within  twelve  months  following  the  notice  ~being  given  as  aforesaid. 
Otherwise  the  assistant  shall  exclude  him  in  the  society" 

4.  "  !N"o  person  so  voluntarily  withdrawn,  or  so  excluded,  shall 
ever  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  among  the  Methodists,  till  he 
complies  with  the  above  requisition." 

5.  "  No  person  holding  slaves  shall  in  future  be  admitted  into 
society,  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  till  he  previously  complies  with  these 
rules  concerning  Slavery." 

!N"ow  all  must  allow  that  this  was  "  an  effectual  method."  And 
as  Drs.  Smith  and  Winans  have  acknowledged,  it  really  made  the 
Methodist  society  or  Church,  at  that  time,  an  anti-slavery  or  Abo 
lition  Church,  in  the  fullest  and  clearest  sense  of  the  word. 

This  law  or  rule  was  ordained  the  very  year  in  which  our  Church 
was  founded.  Indeed,  the  Church  was  erected  upon  it.  For  when 
she  was  organized  this  was  the  existing  rule  on  Slavery,  and  as  yet 


Suspension.  47 

it  was  standing  out  unimpaired  and  unstispendecl.  The  suspension 
as  we  will  show,  came  afterwards. 

But  to  this  there  was  an  exception.  Immediately  following  this 
"  method,"  there  was  added  a  nota  lene,  which  was  intended  for 
members  who  lived  in  those  States  in  which  they  could  not  obtain 
a  legal  emancipation,  or,  could  only  obtain  it  with  great  difficulty 
and  after  protracted  efforts,  viz : 

"  These  rules  are  to  effect  the  members  of  our  society,  no  farther 
than  they  are  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  they 
reside. 

"  And  respecting  our  brethren  in  Virginia  that  are  concerned, 
and  after  due  consideration  of  their  peculiar  circumstances,  we  allow 
them  two  years  from  the  notice  given,  to  consider  the  expedience  of 
compliance  or  non-compliance  with  these  rules." 

And  then  follows  the  43d  question,  "What  shall  be  done  with 
those  who  buy  or  sell  slaves,  or  give  them  away  ? 

"Ans.  They  shall  be  expelled  immediately ;  unless  they  buy  them 
on  purpose  to  free  them." 

Now  we  should  observe  that  the  above  rules,  for  the  continuation 
of  membership,  required  a  regular  bill  of  emancipation  "  legally  exe 
cuted  and  recorded"  In  some  States,  this  was  impossible  ;  for  in 
them  there  were  no  laws  concerning  emancipation,  and  no  book  in 
which  it  could  be  legally  recorded.  And  to  such  cases  no  doubt 
the  exception  refers,  when  it  releases  members  who  resided  in  those 
States  whose  laws  are  "  inconsistent"  with  a  legal  emancipation. 
In  Virginia  there  were  greater  impediments  than  in  Maryland,  and 
the  more  Northern  States.  Yet  the  "  peculiar  circumstances"  of 
the  former  could  not  have  been  insuperable  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Conference,  for  they  limited  the  time  to  two  years,  "  that  the  mem 
bers  might  consider  whether  they  Would,  or  would  not  comply  with 
these  rules.  But  this  exception,  the  releasing  from  the  obligation 
of  a  legal  emancipation,  was  never  intended  to  release  the  member 
from  the  moral  obligation  of  giving  the  reputed  slave  "  that  which 
was  just  and  equal"  for  his  work,  nor  from  the  duty  of  treating 
him  in  all  respects  as  a  fellow-man — for  the  requisition  for  these, 
was  already  in  the  Bible  on  which  the  discipline  was  founded,  and 
consequently  it  was  prior  in  time  and  higher  in  authority  than  any 
constitutions  or  ecclesiastical  rules  could  possibly  have  made  them. 

THE  SUSPENSION. — The  above  effectual  method,  to  use  a  coarse 
but  not  inappropriate  figure,  was  "  taking  the  bull  by  the  horns." 
And  it  was  no  wonder  that  the  untamed  creature  should  have 
raved  and  struggled  so  furiously.  All  the  powers  and  resources 
of  Slavery  were  at  this  time  aroused  and  marshalled  against  the 
rule.  It  was  to  a  great  extent  a  matter  of  life  and  death  with  it. 
For,  at  this  juncture,  statesmen  and  ministers,  congresses,  confer 
ences  and  other  ecclesiastical  bodies  w^ere  generally  arrayed  against  it 
for  its  entire  destruction. 

To  counteract  these  influences,  the  same  system  of  threatening 


4:8  Suspension. 

and  terrorism  was  then  resorted  to,  which  has  been  practised  in 
our  own  day.  "It  was  going  too  far,"  said  some.  It  would  do 
more  harm  than  good.  It  would  hurt  the  Church,  break  up  society, 
and  above  all,  it  would  exclude  the  gospel  from  the  poor  slaves. 

And  at  the  Virginia  Conference  of  1785,  several  petitions  were 
presented  by  some  of  the  principal  men  and  t  members,  urging  the 
suspension  of  the  rules  on  Slavery ;  but  Dr.  Coke  and  the  confer 
ence  brought  affairs  to  this  issue: — "That  unless  the  rules  against 
Slavery  were  permitted  to  operate,  preaching  would  be  withdrawn 
from  those  circuits  and  places  in  which  they  were  too  obnoxious  to 
be  suffered."  This  first  refusal,  however,  did  not  deter  the  agitators 
for  Slavery.  They  resolutely  persisted  in  their  efforts;  and  the 
Baltimore  conference  of  the  same  year,  in  an  evil  hour,  yielded 
and  put  forth  the  following,  to  wit: 

"  It  is  recommended  to  all  our  brethren  to  suspend  the  execution 
of  the  minute  on  Slavery,  till  the  deliberations  of  a  future  confer 
ence;  and  that  an  equal  space  of  time  be  allowed  all  our  members 
for  consideration,  when  the  minute  shall  be  put  in  force. 

"  N.  B.  "We  do  hold  in  the  deepest  abhorrence  the  practice  of  Sla 
very,  and  shall  not  cease  to  seek  its  destruction  by  all  wise  and  pru 
dent  means." 

But  still  these  rules  were  not  suspended  at  that  time  absolutely 
and  indefinitely ;  nor  were  they  suspended  because  they  were 
deemed  unwise  and  imprudent,  as  the'  Eev.  Jesse  Lee  and  thou 
sands  after  him,  have  asserted.  But  they  were  suspended  only 
for  a  short  period,  "  until  the  deliberation  of  a  future  conference,'" 
and  that  too  for  a  special  purpose,  "  that  time  may  be  allowed  all 
our  members  for  consideration,  when  the  minute  shall  be  put  in 
force"  For  although  the  conference  believed  Slavery  to  be  sinful, 
yet  they  very  reasonably  supposed  that  there  were  many  others  who 
had  not  this  knowledge.  Many  at  that  day  might  have  been  in  the 
situation  of  the  venerable  Garretson,  who  "  had  not  reflected  much 
upon  it  and  had  read  nothing  about  it."  Right  and  wrong  are  im 
mutable,  depending  on  the  will  of  God  who  has  fixed  the  relation 
of  things ;  but  guilt  or  innocence  depends  on  the  knowledge  of  these 
relations.  Hence  the  conference  gave  "  time  for  consideration,"  and 
required  that  all  "should  be  warned,"  when  the  rule  "should  be  en 
forced."  Another  reason  is  assigned  for  the  suspension  of  this  rule, 
and  one  too  in  keeping  with  their  avowed  abhorrence  to  the  prac 
tice  of  slaveholding.  In  Dr.  Cokds  Life,  p.  14i,  the  biographer  says 
of  the  conference,  June  2,  1785,  "  the  rule  was  taken  up,  and  as  the 
legislature  was  about  to  act  on  the  slave  question,  it  was  suggested 
that  further  interference  on  their  part,  might  not  be  proper.  Lest 
their  steady  perseverence  might  defeat  a  greater  good,  it  was 
finally  determined  that  opposition  for  the  present  be  suspended." 
Now  here  is  not  the  least  intimation  that  the  conference  who  sus 
pended  the  rule,  did  so,  because  they'  thought  it  "  unwise  and  im 
prudent,"  but  as  the  legislature  was  to  act  the  next  session,  they 
deemed  it  proper  for  the  present  to  suspend  their  action,  that  there 


Suspension.  49 

might  not  be  the  least  appearance  of  interference  or  dictation  with 
the3 civil  authority  in  their  acts. 

But  who  were  those  agitators  who  resisted  the  action  of  bishops 
and  conferences  at  the  time  when  that  action- was  against  Slavery? 
They  were  the  slaveholders  and  their  apologists,  the  same  class  of 
men  who  now  claim  for  those  in  authority  almost  a  divine  right 
to  compel  members  and  subordinate  ministers  wholly  to  refrain  from 
the  slave  question.  It  was  not  any  considerable  number  of  the 
Methodists  who  deemed  these  rules  un-wise  and  imprudent.  For 
there  never  has  been  anything  like  a  proportion  of  our  poor  white 
brethren  at  the  South  who  have  been  favorable  to  Slavery. 

These  agitators  were  of  that  class  of  whom  Bishop  Asbury  wrote 
sixty  or  more  years  ago : 

"The  great  landholders  who  are  industrious  will  soon  show 
the  effects  of  the  aristocracy  of  wealth,  by  lording  it  over  their 
poorer  neighbors,  and  securing  to  themselves  all  the  offices  of  profit 
and  honor."  [Jour,  vol  2,  p.  36.]  Without  a  figure  or  exaggera 
tion,  the  most  of  the  South  is  governed  by  an  oligarchy. 

This  class  enjoy  the  most  ample  means  of  education,  and  are  in 
general  highly  educated,  and  from  their  position  on  the  plantations, 
are  trained  from  their  very  youth  to  the  science  of  government. 
They  are  to  all  practical  purposes  the  privileged  nobility  of  the 
southern  country.  On  the  contrary,  the  great  majority  of  the 
whites  are  comparatively  poor,  and  some  of  them  extremely  so. 
Through  the  influence  of  Slavery,  the  means  of  instruction  are  not 
within  their  reach ;  consequently  a  large  proportion  of  them  are  not 
educated,  and  very  many  of  them  can  neither  read  nor  write. 
Thus  the  large  slaveholders,  who  are  a  small  minority,  form  a  real 
oligarchy,  monopolizing  the  entire  direction  of  all  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  affairs. 

The  suspension  of  the  prohibitory  rule  on  Slavery  of  1785,  will 
ever  form  a  prominent  feature  in  the  history  of  the  Methodist  Epis 
copal  Church.  For  this  was  the  first  concession  which  she  had  ever 
made  to  Slavery.  From  this  period  for  twenty-five  or  thirty  years 
she  struggled  against  this  enormous  evil,  sometimes  partially  en 
forcing  the  rule,  but  perhaps  more  frequently  dispensing  with  it, 
until  nearly  the  whole  of  it  at  last  went  by  default. 

Dr.  Olin  in  the  general  conference  of  1844,  said,  that  the  con 
templated  division  broke  upon  them  as  a  thunder  clap  out  of  a  clear 
sky.  The  Doctor  was  eloquent,  but  he  was  not  correct.  Such 
great  events  never  come  all  at  once.  This  great  disruption  dates 
back  about  sixty  years,  to  the  period  of  which  we  write.  But  its 
sad  work  ia  not  yet  done.  Discordant  materials  can  never  remain 
very  long  together.  First  pure  then  peacable,  and  never  till  then. 
After  the  lapse  of  nearly  two  generations,  we  can  see  perhaps 
wherein  our  fathers  might  have  done  better.  But  probably  the 
most  of  us,  with  only  their  experience  in  the  premises,  might  not 
have  done  so  well.  They  tried  to  enforce  the  rule,  although  it  is 
evident  there  was  a  great  diversity  and  remissness  in  the  adminis- 


50  Suspension. 

tration  of  it,  particularly  in  those  States  which  did  not  allow  civil 
liberty  to  the  emancipated.  Some  took  advantage  of  these  legal 
impediments  to  emancipation,  and  did  not  carry  out  the  real  and 
moral  one  which  the  spirit  of  our  rule  always  required.  And  the 
conferences,  at  last  appear  to  have  been  at  a  loss  to  frame  a  rule 
which  would  meet  the  case ;  and  consequently  they  left  the  adjust 
ment  of  what  was  right  in  the.  premises,  to  the  administrator  and 
the  conscience  of  the  master. 

At«  the  Greenville  conference,  in  Virginia,  they  saw,  however, 
that  in  very  many  cases,  nothing  had  been  done,  and  they  urged 
"  That  in  those  States  which  did  not  allow  emancipation,  the  mas 
ter  should  give  wages"  to  the  reputed  slave.*  This,  indeed,  had 
always  been  understood,  but  now  they  found  it  necessary  to  define, 
so  that,  if  possible,  they  might  detect  the  craft  and  sinuosity  of  sel 
fishness.  The  proof  or  showing  that  it  was  right  to  give  wages,  or 
an  equivalent  for  work  rendered,  seemed  like  attempting  to  prove 
the  truth  of  an  axiom ;  for  every  uninterested  person,  civilized  or 
savage,  felt  the  conviction  of  this,  at  sight.  Yet  the  denial  of  this 
axiomatic  truth  is  the  main  pillar  of  {Slavery ;  acknowledge  this, 
and  the  giant  sin  at  once  tumbles  to. its  native  pit  without  the  hope 
of  a  resurrection.  Well  might  Bishop  Asbury  say,  "  If  the  gospel 
tolerates  Slavery,  what  will  it  not  authorize  ?" 

Although  the  same  system  of  terrorism  was  brought  to  bear  upon 
them,  that  is  menaced  in  our  day,  yet  there  were  several  other  causes 
which  abated  the  action  of  our  Church,  and  led  to  this  suspension. 
Public  opinion  at  this  period  was  deluded  with  the  idea,  that  as  the 
principles  of  the  Revolution  were  abroad,  and  as  the  foreign  slave 
trade  would  soon  cease,  that  Slavery  itself  would  soon  die  out. 
Some  of  our  wisest  and  best  statesmen  were  of  this  opinion,  and 
many  of  our  leading  preachers  were  equally  carried  away  with  this 
delusion.  And  some  of  both  classes  really  appeared  to  think  that 
further  action  against  it  was  unnecessary  if  not  injurious.  And 
further:  mainly  through  tjie  Methodists  the  work  of  emancipation 
was  fairly  in  progress,  and  seemed  to  indicate  to  many  the  final 
extirpation  of  this  great  evil. 

But  there  was  nothing  in  all  this  controversy,  which  so  generally 
and  effectually  checked  the  ministers  of  our  Church  in  their  imme 
diate  efforts  to  extirpate  Slavery  like  the  supposed  exclusion  of  ac 
cess  to  the  slave.  They  had  the  temporal  and  spiritual  good  of  the 
slave  at  heart.  Bishop  Asbury  frequently  observes  in  his  Journal, 
"  That  their  commission  at  the  extreme  South,  was  rather  to  the 
slaves  than  to  the  whites."  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  when 
they  saw  themselves  in  some  cases  excluded  from  those  who  had 
been  begotten  in  bonds,  and  who  would  now  be  left  without  their 
care  or  instruction,  that  some  of  the  preachers  began  to  waver  and 
doubt  whether  it  were  best  to  prosecute  this  enterprise  any  farther. 

Yet,  after  all,  if  they  had  never  abated  one  jot  of  their  opposition, 
but  had  continued  to  press  on  the  conscience  of  the  slaveholder  and 

*  Asbury 's  Journal. 


Suspension.  51 

the  civil  authorities,  the  injustice  of  this  prodigious  evil,  we  fully  be 
lieve  God  would  have  sustained  them,  and  honored  them  in  achiev 
ing  one  of  the  greatest  blessings  to  our  church  and  country.  But 
they  have  lost  that  honor.  Truth  never  produces  bad  results  ;  but 
error  always  and  invariably  must. 

This  exclusion  from  the  slaves  would  have  been  temporary,  and 
after  some  years  it  would  have  been  followed  by  full  and  untram 
melled  access  to  them ;  so  that  then  they  could  have  preached  the 
whole  gospel  to  them.  For  Slavery  unconnected  with  the  church 
could  not  long  sustain  itself  in  her  presence.  It  is  now  nearly  forty 
years  since  our  church  began  to  recede  from  her  first  position  in  re 
gard  to  Slavery,  and  what  has  the  poor  slave  gained  by  those  very 
concessions  which  were,  in  the  first  instances,  made  for  his  sake  ? 
He  has  on  the  whole  gained  nothing,  but  lost  much  every  way. 
What,  in  the  main,  has  been  his  moral  and  religious  condition 
during  the  last  thirty  years  ?  We  will  let  two  unexceptionable 
Southern  witnesses  tell  it. 

The  Keport  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  in  1834, 
says  :  "  Who  would  cred  itit,  in  these  years  of  revival  and  benevo 
lent  effort,  that  in  this  Christian  republic  there  are  millions  of  human 
beings  in  the  condition  of  heathens,  and  in  some  respects  in  a  worse 
condition  ?  The  negroes  are  destitute  of  the  privileges  of  the  gospel, 
and  ever  will  be  under  the  present  state  of  things." 

The  next  witness  whom  we  will  present  is  the  Eev.  James  O. 
Andrews,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South.  In  an 
address  to  the  Southern  Church,  several  years  ago,  he  says,  "  There 
are  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  immortal  souls,  living  in  this 
land  of  vision,  who  know  little  more  of  God  or  heaven,  than  their 
sable  brethren  in  the  interior  of  Africa,  for  whose  souls  no  man 
careth,  while  with  the  avails  of  their  sweat  and  toil,  the  Southern 
Church  has  been  contributing  her  thousands  to  send  the  Bible  and 
missionaries  to  perishing  heathen  beyond  the  seas."  This  is  a  sad 
picture  after  the  slaves  have  been  with  us  for  two  hundred  years. 

That  there  is,  however,  much  real  Christianity  among  the  slaves 
at  the  South,  we  know  from  our  own  observation,  but  we  know  also, 
that  every  concession  to  Slavery  has  been  an  impediment,  a  stum 
bling-block  to  their  reception  of  Christianity.  None  but  those  who 
have  gained  the  confidence  of  the  slave  and  have  heard  their  state 
ments,  can  tell  the  amount  of  infidelity  there  is  among  them.  They 
may  never  have  heard  of  Yoltaire  or  Paine,  but  yet  there  are  many 
Deists  or  Infidels  among  them  notwithstanding.  When  any  such  slaves 
disclose  their  real  opinions  they  say,  "  If  Christianity  allows  Slavery 
they  do  not  believe  in  it ;  do  not  wish  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with 
it."  And,  if  it  does  not,  then  they  say,  "  the  Ministers  and  Churches 
are  hypocritical,  and  they  have  no  confidence  in  them.  That  Mas 
ter  and  the  Parsons  are  clubbed  together  to  keep  them  down,  to  get 
work  out  of  them  for  nothing,  so  that  they  may  both  live  on  their 
earnings."  These  are  the  views  and  feelings  of  thousands  among 
them. 


52  Suspension. 

But  still  there  are  good  Christians  among  slaves.  Some  of  them 
are  practicing  the  purest  morality  the  world  has  ever  seen,  the 
doing  of  good  for  evil,  and  doing  it  heartily,  as  unto  the  Lord. 
But  we  egregiously  delude  ourselves  when  we  imagine  that  Christi 
anity  among  them  is  dependent  on  the  present  race  of  white  preach 
ers.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  continue  and  spread  among  them  if 
another  white  preacher  were  never  again  to  visit  them.  The  true 
case  is  this  :  Gospel  preachers  of  the  abolitionist  type  of  John  Wes 
ley,  first  introduced  Christianity  among  the  slaves,  and  they  received 
such  as  messengers  sent  from  God.  A  lodgment  of  truth  was  made 
with  them ;  the  plan  of  salvation  by  faith  was  understood  by  them ; 
and  God  has  since  raised  up  a  succession  of  instrumentalities  from 
among  themselves  to  carry  it  on.  We  must  not  think  that  the  Ho 
ly  Spirit  is  given  only  to  ourselves.  God  does  not  see  as  we  do. 
There  are  men  in  Slavery  who  have  been  called  of  God  to  preach 
as  much  as  John  Wesley  or  St.  Paul,  and  although  an  impious  law 
will  not  allow  them  to  read  God's  word,  yet  they  are  taught  of  God, 
and  they  do  preach  to  the  edification  of  their  poor  fellow  slaves. 
These  are  they  who  keep  the  lamp  alive  among  this,  the  most  op 
pressed  and  most  abused  body  of  Christians  on  God's  earth.  And 
for  nearly  a  hundred  years  these  patient  sufferers  have  been  crying 
How  long,  O  Lord,  dost  tkou  not  judge  us?  And  what  folly  and 
infatuation  it  is  in  us  to  suppose  that  God  will  not  hear  them,  or  to 
vainly  think  that  the  seeds  of  avarice  and  injustice  which  have  been 
sowed  among  them  for  nearly  two  centuries,  will  never  be  reaped. 
We  will  close  this  paragraph  in  the  words  of  a  late  writer.  "  The 
fatal  error  of  the  first  Methodists  seems  to  have  consisted  in  an  un 
warrantable  lenity  towards  the  delinquent  members,  in  not  prompt 
ly  enforcing  the  discipline,  under  the  delusive  expectation  that  they 
would  in  a  short  time  be  prepared  to  take  the  step  voluntarily  them 
selves,  without  being  authoritatively  coerced." 

But  we  must  riot  concede  too  much.  These  rules  were  not  abso 
lutely  and  indefinitely  suspended.  They  were  most  probably  exe 
cuted  in  the  States  of  Maryland,  Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey  and  New- York.  How  often  I  have  heard  old  Methodists 
of  the  South  lament  the  change  which  had  come  over  the  Church 
since  their  union  with  it.  To  use  their  own  language, ,"  They  had 
made  themselves  poor  by  emancipations  to  retain  a  standing  in  that 
very  Church  which  is  now  overrun  with  Slavery." 

That  these  rules  were  enforced  in  many  cases  is  evident  from  the 
history  of  this  period,  and  from  the  unprecedented  increase  of  the 
free  colored  population  in  Maryland,  which  between  1790  and  1800 
went  up  to  143.5  per  cent.,  the  natural  increase  being  less  than  25 
per  cen  t.  Nothing  but  the  large  emancipation,  occasioned  directly  or 
indirectly  by  the  enforcement  of  this  very  rule  in  question,  can  ac 
count  for  this  phenomenon  among  the  colored  people  in  that  State. 

But  throughout  this  whole  investigation  we  must  distinguish  be 
tween  a  legal  emancipation  and  a  moral  and  a  real  one.  They  are 
quite  different:  the  one  may  exist  without  the  other.  From  the  for- 


Suspension.  53 

mer  the  conference  might  release  the  member;  but  they  never 
could  "  suspend  "  or  release  him  from  the  obligation  of  the  latter. 
For  the  conference  never  undertook  the  dispensing  power  of  the  Pa 
pacy,  to  dispense  with  the  moral  obligation  to  do  right.  Who  can 
suppose  that  the  conference  of  1785  attempted  to  suspend  the  moral 
law  of  God,  releasing  the  early  Methodists  from  their  duty,  to  give 
to  their  servants  that  which  was  just  and  fight,  the  very  thing  which 
the  conference  of  1856  actually  declined  to  do? 

All  the  exceptions  and  suspensions  that  were  at  first  intended 
amounted  to  about  this:  Releasing  the  members  from  procuring 
the  legal  and  recorded  bill  of  emancipation,  and  leaving  the  adjust 
ment  of  moral  right  and  honesty  in  the  premises  to  the  masters, 
trusting  that  they  would  do  voluntarily  that  which  the  Church  had 
undertaken  to  do  by  ecclesiastical  law.  But  still  the  Church  re 
quired  those  moral  duties  of  them  as  much  after  as  before  the  excep 
tions  or  the  suspensions  were  allowed.  "We  do  not  say  that  this 
course  was  wise  ;  we  think  it  was  not,  for  it  was  yielding  the  rights 
of  the  Church  to  a  worldly  policy  ;  and  it  was  not  sufficiently  ap 
preciating  the  Christian  rights  of  poor  brethren  in  bonds,  as  bound 
with  them  ;  and  further,  it  was  allowing  a  man  to  be  a  judge  in  his 
own  cause.  But  it  is  really  sickening  and  lamentable  to  see  editors 
and  members  of  the  general  conference  producing  the  above  excep 
tion  and  suspension,  as  if  by  them,  the  conference  of  1785  had  con 
ceded  the  whole  ground,  allowing  an  iniquitous  secular  law  to  over 
ride  their  own,  and  to  make,  through  it,  the  word  of  God  of  no  ef 
fect.  '  The  conference  of  1785  intended  no  such  thing.  The  truth  is, 
the  conference  too  generously  committed  the  adjustment  of  moral 
right  to  the  integrity  of  the  masters,  expecting  that  in  this  way  they 
would  extirpate  Slavery.  But  in  most  cases  they  betrayed  the 
trust,  as  they  do  now,  and  perhaps  ever  will,  "  for  a  gift  blindeth 
the  eyes,"  and  no  man  should  be  a  judge  in  his  own  cause. 

But  although  the  Church  could  not  change  the  relation  in  civil  law, 
yet  she  aimed  to  change  it,  in  reality,  in  moral  law.  With  very  many 
there  is  a  great  error  in  this  particular,  and  the  whole  subject  has 
been  strangely  mystified.  It  ought  to  be  remembered  that  the  State 
never  makes  domestic,  that  is,  house  slavery  ;  it  only  gives  individu 
als  the  privilege  to  do  so  if  they  see  proper  ;  and  when  they  do  it 
the  State  protects  and  sustains  them  in  it.  But  it  does  not  compel 
them.  In  Turkey  the  law  allows  a  man  to  have  four  wives,  but  that 
would  not  compel  a  Christian  in  that  country  to  have  so  many.  A 
Mohammedan  having  four  wives,  on  embracing  Christianity,  could 
not  dissolve  his  relation  to  them  in  law;  he  would  still  be  obliged  to 
support  them  and  their  children.  But  that  would  not  compel  him 
to  live  with  all  of  them  in  the  relation  of  husband. 

So  the  civil  authority  may  say  that  a  Christian  shall  not  dissolve 
the  relation  of  master  and  slave  in  civil  law ;  but  there  is  not  a 
Methodist  from  Maryland  to  Mexico  who  cannot  dissolve  it,  in  fact 
and  in  reality,  if  he  will.  He  can  say  that  there  shall  not  be  a  do 
mestic  slave  on  his  plantation  or  in  his  domicil. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


COLLATERAL     EVIDENCE     OF     NON -CONSTITUTION  AL     SLAVEHOLDI NG. 


EFFORTS  TO  EXTIRPATE  —  NEVER  ACQUIESCED  IN  SLAVEHOLDING  —  PREACHED 
AGAINST  IT — OPPOSITION  —  DR.  COKE  —  REV.  J.  EVERETT  —  REV.  G.  DOUGH 
ERTY —  MOBBED  IN  CHARLESTON  —  FELL  A  MARTYR  —  BISHOP  ASBURY'S  TES 
TIMONY —  EMANCIPATIONS  —  METHODISTS  FLED  TO  OHIO  —  SAYLE  —  AXLEY 
—  REV.  FREEBORN  GARRETSON  —  His  PLAN  OF  EMANCIPATION. 


THE  period  in  which  our  Church  was  founded  was  not  a  compro 
mising  period ;  and  our  fathers  were  no  compromisers.  Moral  prin 
ciple  with  them  was  an  entity,  fixed  in  its  character  as  the  attributes 
of  its  Great  Author ;  and  the  gospel,  under  their  administration,  was 
never  intended  to  have  that  pliancy  which  could  accommodate 
itself  to  any  existing  evils  of  a  moral  nature. 

As  soon  as  Slavery  was  discovered  in  the  Methodist  societies,  im 
mediate  measures,  in  1780,  were  taken  to  drive  it  out.  These  efforts 
were  continued  with  more  or  less  success  during  the  whole  life  of' 
our  founders.  At  first  they  were  merely  monitory ;  and  when  they 
did  not  accomplish  their  intended  object,  they  became  disciplinary. 
The  execution  of  which  they  delayed  or  hastened,  according  to  the 
light  or  the  knowledge  of  the  members  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
Slavery.  Where  it  was  attainable,  they  required  a  bill  of  emanci 
pation  "  legally  executed  and  recorded."  In  States  in  which  this 
was  "  inconsistent,"  they  required  a  moral  and  a  real  one,  giving 
wages  for  service  rendered,  or  leaving  the  adjustment  of  what  was 
right  to  the  administrator  and  the  conscience  of  the  master.  Some 
times,  as  we  have  shown,  suspending  the  rule  for  a  season,  and  then 
again  enforcing  it,  but  never  during  their  life,  losing  sight  of  the 
character  of  Slavery,  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God  and 
man. 

And  in  these  measures  there  seems  to  have  been,  generally, 
great  unanimity.  Perhaps  none,  except  the  Rev.  Jesse  Lee, 
our  southern  historian,  thought  they  were  going  too  far.  For 
Bishop  Asbury  records  frequently  in  his  journal,  "  our  conference 
closed  in  peace,"  and  "  we  were  all  agreed  on  African  Slavery."  In 
the  early  period  of  the  Church,  her  councils  were  not  disturbed  by 
the  agitation  of  the  slave  question,  for  she  herself  was  the  chief 
mover  in  the  matter.  The  opposition  was  mainly  from  without,  and 
the  Church  was  only  disturbed  because  a  few  had  brought  this 
crying  sin  within  her  border. 


Collateral  Evidence  of  Non- Constitutional  Slaveholding.      55 

After  the  commencement  of  the  present  century,  the  efforts  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  extirpate  Slavery,  were  far  less 
vigorous  than  they  had  been  before.  But  she  never  acquiesced 
in  the  continuation  of  Slavery.  So  far  from  it,  she  held  the  practice 
of  it  in  the  deepest  abhorrence,  and  was  continually  enquiring  for 
the  best  means  to  effect  its  destruction. 

This,  perhaps,  will  be  the  best  place  to  examine  one  of  the  most 
specious  arguments  during  the  last  general  conference,  to  prove  the 
constitutionality  of  slaveholding.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Slicer,  of  the 
Baltimore  conference,  said,  "  It  is  a  wise  maxim  in  civil  law,  that 
the  law  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the  framers  of  the  law,  and  by  the 
practice  under  the  law  immediately  succeeding  its  enactment. 
This  is  a  fair  principle  of  construction,  or  method  of  interpretation, 
and  to  show  that  this  principle  has  been  recognized  by  the  highest 
judicial  authority  of  this  country,  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention 
of  this  conference  to  Cranctis  Report^  p.  97.  In  the  case  of 
Steward  vs.  Leaird,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  had  tried  the  cause 
in  the  Court  below;  the  judgment  was  affirmed,  and  Mr.  Justice 
Patterson,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  said  : — 
"'To  this  objection,  which  is  of  recent  date,  it  is  sufficient  to 
observe,  that  practice  and  acquiescence  under  it  (the  law)  for  a 
period  of  several  years,  commencing  with  the  organization  of  the 
judicial  system,  affords  an  irresistable  answer,  and  have  indeed  fixed 
its  construction.' " 

The  above  maxim  is  a  good  one,  and  the  legal  inference  from  it 
is  equally  good ;  but  unfortunately  for  their  cause,  it  was  drawn  from 
an  entire  falsehood.  The  assumption  that  the  "  practice  and  acquies 
cence  of  the  Church  in  Slavery  commenced  with  the  organization 
of  the  system,"  is  wholly  without  foundation.  The  practice,  on  the 
contrary,  has  always  been  under  protest,  and  as  to  the  acquiescence 
in  Slavery  on  the  principle  of  ecclesiastical  right,  there  never  was 
a  vestige  of  it  during  the  average  lives  of  her  founders.  It  is  one 
of  the  most  unfounded  assumptions  in  this  whole  controversy.  So 
this  argument  so  far  from  proving  constitutional  slaveholding  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  will  prove  just  the  reverse,  as  we  can 
show  ;  and  thus  the  enemy's  guns  can  be  easily  turned  upon  them 
selves. 

For  more  than  twenty  years,  while  the  administration  was  in  the 
hands  of  those  venerable  men  who  framed  the  rule,  there  was  one 
incessant  war  against  slaveholding  in  the  Church.  They  were  strug 
gling  to  "  extirpate "  it,  calling  for  light,  seeking  its  destruction, 
"waiting  when  the  minute  [against  it]  shall  be  enforced,"  and 
finally  they  left  the  stereotyped  question,  which  the  Church  for 
seventy -two  years  has  been  continually  asking,  "What  shall  be  done 
to  extirpate  Slavery  ? " 

.So  that  when  the  facts  in  the  case  are  seen,  the  entire  fabric  raised 
upon  this  fancied  foundation,  falls  at  once  to  the  ground,  leaving 
only  behind  it  an  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  the  cause,  which  was 
driven  to  such  expedients.  To  illustrate  :  one  has  a  fine  field ;  unruly 


56      Collateral  Evidence  of  N on- Constitutional  Slaveholding. 

cattle  get  into  it ;  the  proprietor  tries  to  get  them  out ;  they  evade 
his  efforts ;  he  still  tries,  calls  for  help,  and  finally  he  stands  continu 
ally  calling,  "  What  shall  be  done  to  drive  them  out  ?" 

Surely  this  would  seem  to  have  been  a  strange  way  of  acquies 
cing.  But  as  this  is  presented  and  dwelt  upon  as  about  the  best 
plea  for  constitutional  slaveholding  in  the  Church,  we  will  amplify 
and  give  a  condensed  view  of  the  efforts  of  those  who  founded  this 
constitutional  rule.  The  state  of  the  case  was  simply  this :  our 
fathers  knew  that  Slavery  was  wholly  and  essentially  wrong,  but 
they  know  that  all  had  not  this  knowledge.  They  put  forth  their 
views  and  laid  down  their  rules  for  the  rising  Church,  and  then  they 
waited  that  all  might  abandon  it  voluntarily,  as  many  had  already 
done.  And  further,  that  those  who  had  been  "  warned  might  either 
give  up  their  slaves  or  quietly  leave  the  Church."  Their  delay  in 
executing  the  rule  did  not  arise  from  any  change  in  their  views  or 
feeling  in  regard  to  Slavery,  or  from  any  less  determination  to  extir 
pate  it  from  the  Church,  but  simply  as  the  Minutes  of  1785  say, 
"  That  time  be  allowed  all  our  members  for  consideration,  when  the 
minute  shall  be  put  in  force." 

So  far  from  acquiescing  in  Slavery  to  domesticate  it  in  the 
Church,  her  first  efforts,  on  the  contrary,  were  to  extirpate  it  from 
the  Church.  And  soon  these  efforts  were  not  only  defensive,  but 
agressive.  By  private  admonition,  public  preaching,  and  the  circu 
lation  and  presentation  of  petitions,  she  was  laboring  to  drive  Sla 
very  not  from  the  Church  only,  but  from  the  nation.  The  moral 
sentiment  which  had  been  already  put  forth  by  our  Church  in  the 
hands  of  our  fathers,  was,  not  an  abstraction,  or  a  dead  letter  on  the 
statute  book,  but  a  living  operating  principle,  known  and  felt  in  the 
community.  This  crying  evil  was  allowed  no  special  privileges  or 
prerogatives ;  but  on  the  contrary,  it  was  placed  by  them  in  the  same 
category  with  other  sins.  It  was  never  called  in  those  days  a 
"  delicate  question  "  or  a  "  peculiar  institution,"  but  on  the  contrary, 
an  "  abomination,"  a  "  complicated  crime,"  and  similar  names,  all 
of  them  significant  of  their  estimation  of  its  sinful  nature. 

According  to  the  history  of  those  times,  some  of  our  ministers  for 
preaching  against  Slavery  were  abused,  mobbed,  arrested  and  fined. 
But  they  still  persisted ;  God  blessed  them  in  it ;  the  people  and  the 
Church  stood  by  them,  and  emancipations  were  effected  almost 
wherever  they  went. 

In  Virginia,  while  preaching  in  a  barn,  Dr.  Coke  introduced 
the  subject  of  Slavery,  and  expatiated  on  its  injustice  in  no  measured 
terms.  Many  were  provoked  to  hear  those  truths  which  from  their 
earliest  infancy  they  had  been  taught  to  stifle,  and  which  their  in 
terest  still  instructed  them  to  conceal.  A  small  party,  therefore, 
withdrew  from  the  house,  and  formed  a  combination  to  offer  him 
some  personal  violence  as  soon  as  he  came  out.  To  persevere  in  this 
resolution,  they  were  stimulated  by  a  lady,  whose  fashionable  appear 
ance  was  more  conspicuous  than  her  politeness  or  humanity.  This 
lady  informed  the  enraged  mob  that  she  would  give  them  fifty 


Collateral  Evidence  of  N on- Constitutional  Slaveholding.     57 

pounds  in  case  they  would  seize  the  preacher  and  give  him  one  hun 
dred  lashes. 

On  leaving  the  house,  Dr.  Coke  was  instantly  surrounded  by  & 
ferocious  party,  who  began  with  threats,  and  proceeded  to  put  these 
threats  in  execution.  A  magistrate,  however,  who  was  present, 
opposed  the  violence  which  they  menanced,  by  seizing  one  who 
appeared  anxious  to  be  foremost.  Another  who  seemed  to  have 
more  strength,  as  he  evidently  had  more  zeal  and  courage  than 
religion,  was  preparing  to  repel  the  assailants  by  giving  them  battle. 
This  gentleman  was  a  military  officer,  and  sustained  the  rank  of  & 
colonel.  Their  united  influence  had  a  most  powerful  effect.  The 
most  courageous  began  to  be  abashed,  and  marks  of  timidity  were 
seen  in  all.  They,  therefore,  gave  vent  to  their  rage  in  idle  threat^ 
and  suffered  the  object  of  their  vengeance  to  escape  without  further 
molestation.  But  rage  and  hostility  were  not  the  only  effects  pro 
duced  by  this  discourse.  The  magistrate  who  had  espoused  the 
cause  of  Dr.  Coke  began  to  view  the  subject  in  a  more  serious  light; 
and,  to  show  that  he  acted  from  pure  principle,  immediately  eman 
cipated  fifteen  slaves.  The  report  of  his  conduct  extended  the 
benefit  still  farther,  and  induced  another  to  follow  his  laudable 
example,  and  to  emancipate  eight  slaves.  And  the  united  example 
of  both  induced  another  to  emancipate  one.  These  effects  were  in 
stantaneously  visible ;  but  to  what  extent  this  faithful  but  sharp 
reproof  operated  in  secret,  we  must  not  expect  fully  to  know  till  we 
enter  into  the  world  of  spirits. — Dr.  Coke's  Life,  p.  138. 

In  these  noble  efforts  Dr.  Coke  took  a  prominent  part ;  but  he  was 
not  alone  in  them.  His  labors  were  in  common  with  the  honored 
names  of  Asbury,  Garrettson,  Everett,  Dougherty,  and  many  others, 
whose  memories  will  yet  be  revered  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  when  she  shall  be  delivered  from  Slavery,  and  when  her 
future  historian  will  write  her  whole  history,  unawed  by  the  slave 
power.  Many  anecdotes  expressive  of  their  abhorrence  of  Slavery,, 
are  yet  in  the  remembrance  of  the  older  members  of  our  Church  .at. 
the  South,  but  most  of  them  are  now  lost,  perhaps  forever.  These 
men  were  foremost  among  the  real  heroes  of  our  Methodism.  Could 
their  deeds  and  sayings,  in  this  warfare  against  Slavery,  be  recover 
ed  and  published,  they  would  correct  many  popular  errors,  and  they 
would  greatly  enrich  our  literature.  But  our  Church  in  those  days 
had  no  papers  or  periodicals  to  preserve  these  precious  items  of  his 
tory  ;  and  on  account  of  the  pro-slavery  current  which  has  been 
settling  back  upon  us  for  the  last  forty  years,  very  few  of  them  have 
been  transmitted  even  orally  to  posterity.  These  worthies  have  long 
since  gone  to  their  reward,  and  in  regard  to  most  of  them, 

"Their  ashes  lie 

No  marble  tells  us  where :  with  their  names 
No  bard  embalms,  nor  sanctifies  his  song/' 

Joseph  Everett  was  admitted  into  the  ministry  in  1781.  We 
know  little  of  him,  other  than  that  he  was  one  of  Nature's  great 
men.  He  received  but  little  improvement  from  letters ;  but  he  was 

5 


58      Collateral  Evidence  of  N on- Constitutional  Slaveholding. 

faithful  and  fearless  in  every  thing  pertaining  to  God  and  truth. 
The  following  anecdotes  of  him  are  set  forth  on  the  authority  of  a 
cotemporary  who  still  lives. 

On  a  circuit  in  Maryland,  a  lady  who  had  recently  been  converted, 
and  whose  husband  was  a  large  slaveholder,  invited  him  after  ser 
mon  to  her  home  to  get  refreshment,  or  to  pass  the  night.  He  avail 
ed  himself  of  the  kind  invitation,  and  was  received  by  the  family  in 
the  most  courteous  and  cordial  manner.  On  looking  around  and 
seeing  something  to  awaken  suspicion,  he  said,  "  Sister,  do  you  keep 
slaves  here  ?"  The  frightened  lady,  in  a  subdued  tone,  replied,  "We 
have  a  few  servants."  To  which  he  answered,  "Pll  not  eat  bread 
nor  drink  water  in  your  house"  And  no  apology,  no  plea  of  cir 
cumstance  nor  inheritance,  could  avail  any  thing  with  him ;  but 
suiting  the  action  to  the  word,  he  immediately  left  the  house,  lest  he 
should  in  some  way  acquiesce  in  the  practice  of  Slavery.  I 
have  been  told  by  Southern  Methodists,  that  when  the  early  preachers 
were  obliged  to  lodge  on  slaveholding  plantations,  that  in  many  in 
stances,  they  would  not  allow  a  slave  to  take  care  of  their  horses, 
but  they  would  do  it  themselves,  lest  it  might  have  the  appearance 
of  acquiescing  in  Slavery.  How  matters  with  many  are  now 
changed ! 

Mr.  Everett,  as  presiding  elder  on  a  large  district,  held  many 
love-feasts.  In  one  of  them,  a  member  was  present,  against  whom 
there  was  something  arising  out  of  Slavery.  During  the  meeting, 
he  arose  to  speak,  and  not  having  much  liberty,  he  began  to  cough, 
to  clear  the  way  for  freer  utterance.  "Ah !"  cried  out  the  presiding 
elder,  "  Cough  that  slave  out  of  your  throat,  and  then  you  will  be 
able  to  speak  the  better."  Now  this  was  not  very  smooth,  nor  very 
polite ;  but  it  told  on  the  delinquent,  and  it  told  in  the  community 
around  him,  and  by  it,  this  fearless  minister  of  truth  has  transmitted 
his  testimony  against  Slavery,  down  even  to  our  times.  His  oppo 
sition  to  Slavery,  and  those  of  his  compeers  at  that  period,  unlike 
the  sentimental  anti-slaveryism  of  too  many  brethren  and  editors  of 
our  day,  had  pith  and  point  in  it.  It  was  significant,  and  it  showed 
at  once  his  views  of  the  matter,  and  that  he  intended  to  do  some 
thing  for  the  extirpation  of  Slavery. 

The  Rev.  George  Dougherty,  a  South  Carolinian,  was  another  of 
Nature's  noble-men.  Like  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  his  bodily 
appearance  was  not  imposing.  But  God  had  given  him  a  mind  of 
superior  mould,  and  what  was  far  better,  a  heart  to  feel  another's 
woe,  and  a  fidelity  and  a  firmness  which  nothing  earthly  could 
corrupt  or  bend.  But  in  middle  life  he  fell  a  martyr  to  the  liberty 
of  the  pulpit,  and  to  a  pure  Methodism.  He  was  an  intense  enemy 
to  Slavery,  and  finally  lost  his  life  on  account  of  the  poor  down-trod 
den  slave,  and  was  buried  with  them  in  the  African  Church  Yard, 
in  Wilmington,  North  Carolina. 

Many  incidents  in  his  life  have  been  narrated.  But  we  will  present 
at  this  time,  the  account  of  his  last  days,  from  the  pen  of  Bishop 
Andrews,  of  the  Church  South,  published  [1830]  in  the  Quarterly  Re- 


Collateral  Evidence  of  Non- Constitutional  Slaveholding.      59 

mew.  We  choose  this  source  for  the  two-fold  purpose  of  illustrating 
our  main  argument,  and  also  of  showing  the  great  change  of  senti 
ment  and  feeling  which  had  come  over  our  Church  between  the 
time  of  the  martyr  and  that  of  the  narrator. 

"  In  the  years  1801-2,"  says  the  Bishop,  "  George  Dougherty  and 
John  Harper  were  stationed  in  Charleston.  During  their  ministry, 
it  appears  that  Mr.  Harper  had  received  from  some  ecclesiastical 
body*  at  the  North  a  number  of  pamphlets,  containing  certain 
resolutions  recommending  measures  to  memorialize  the  Southern 
legislative  bodies,  in  behalf  of  the  abolition  of  Slavery.  Mr.  H. 
had  merely  showed  them  to  a  friend  ;  it  being  agreed  between  them, 
that  it  was  not  prudent  to  make  any  distribution  of  them.  But 
rumor,  with  her  many  tongues,  was  busy  in  publishing  abroad  the 
terrible  treason  which  was  to  be  found  in  possession  of  the  Meth 
odist  preachers.  The  intendant  of  the  city  called  on  Mr.  Harper 
for  an  explanation.  This  was  satisfactorily  given,  and  to  close  the 
concern,  the  offensive  documents  were  burned  in  the  presence  of  his 
honor,  who  went  away  apparently  well  satisfied  with  the  proof  he 
had  received  of  the  prudent  conduct  of  the  clergyman. 

"  But  the  mob  were  determined  that  frhe  Methodist  parson  should, 
in  his  own  person,  atone  for  harboring  the  above-mentioned  wicked 
resolutions.  They  accordingly  seized  Mr.  Harper  as  he  left  the 
Church.  A  quarrel  arising  among  them,  he  escaped  to  his  home  in 
safety.  The  mob  raged  at  the  disappointment.  They  resolved, 
however,  to  return  to  the  charge  the  next  evening.  But  it  so  happen 
ed,  that  Mr.  Dougherty  was  the  officiating  minister  on  that  evening. 
This  disappointment,  however,  was  a  small  matter.  It  was  a  Meth 
odist  minister,  and  they  would  not,  of  course,  be  very  nice  as  to  the 
name.  Mr.  Dougherty  was  seized  as  he  left  the  Church,  and  dragged 
by  the  mob  to  a  considerable  distance,  through  the  streets.  Some 
cried,  "  pump  him,"  and  others  said,  "  duck  him."  It  was  finally 
concluded  to  pump  him.  They  accordingly  dragged  him  to  a  pump, 
placed  his  head  under  the  spout,  and  continued  pumping  water  on 
him  for  some  time.  How  much  longer  they  might  have  continued, 
is  uncertain,  had  not  the  intrepidity  of  a  female  checked  their  pro 
ceeding?.  This  was  Mrs.  Kugeley,  a  pious  member  of  the  Church, 
who  rushed  into  the  midst  of  the  infuriated  mob,  and  stuffed  her 
shawl  into  the  spout  of  the  pump.  This  resolute  act  quite  astound 
ed  Mr.  D.'s  persecutors.  At  this  moment,  a  gentleman  stepped  up 
with  a  drawn  sword,  and  taking  Mr.  Dougherty  by  the  hand,  avow 
ed  his  purpose  to  protect  him  at  all  hazards.  So  saying,  he  led  him 
away,  no  man  troubling  him  any  farther.  Mr.  D.  was  by  this  time 
thoroughly  wet,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  this  disgraceful  proceed 
ing  contributed  in  no  small  measure  to  lay  the  foundation  of  that 
pulmonary  affection,  which  ultimately  carried  to  the  grave  this 

*Now,  this  '-some  ecclesiastical  body"  was  no  less  than  the  General  Confer 
ence  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  For  Bishop  A.sbury's  Journal,  Vol.  iii, 
p.  4,  in  speaking  of  the  very  same  mobbing,  calls  these  pamphlets  "  our  Address'7 
and  the  "Address  of  the  General  Conference.77 


60      Collateral  Evidence  of  N on- Constitutional  Slaveholding. 

almost  unequalled  man  of  God,  and  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus- 
Christ."  He  lingered  a  few  years  after  the  injuries  received  on  this 
occasion,  and  died  a  martyr  to  the  freedom  of  the  pulpit,  and  to  the 
purity  of  the  gospel. 

The  above  is  the  account  of  the  Southern  Bishop.  But  it  does 
not  tell  the  whole  truth.  The  suppressions  and  omissions  in  this 
and  in  other  instances,  are  not  only  evidences  of  a  far  higher  anti- 
slavery  character  in  our  Church  when  it  was  founded,  but  also  of  an 
unwillingness  on  the  part  of  most  writers  of  the  present  day  that 
her  former  intense  hostility  to  Slavery  should  be  fully  known.  But 
truth,  however,  will  come  out ;  and  a  few  quotations  from  Bishop 
Asbury's  Journal  will  give  us  the  whole  truth  in  this  matter,  and  it 
will  show  that  with  them  there  was  no  succumbing  to  the  slave  power. 
"  I  had  thought,"  says  the  Bishop,  "  our  Address  would  have  moved 
their  majesties,  the  peers  of  Charleston.  Report  says  they  have  pump 
ed  poor  Dougherty  until  they  had  almost  deprived  him  of  breath,  and 
John  Harper  committed  the  Addresses  to  the  flames  before  the  In- 
tendant  of  the  city.  I  saw  one  of  the  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  South  Carolina,  who  informed  me  that  our  Addresses 
from  the  general  conference  had  been  read  and  reprobated ;  and 
furthermore,  it  had  been  the  occasion  of  producing  a  law  which 
prohibited  a  minister's  attempting  to  instruct  any  number  of  blacks 
with  the  doors  shut ;  authorizing  a  peace  officer  to  break  open  the 
doors  in  such  cases,  and  disperse  or  whip  the  offenders.  A  Solomon 
Reeves  let  me  know  that  he  had  seen  the  Address,  signed  by  me ; 
and  was  quite  confident  that  there  were  no  arguments  to  prove  that 
Slavery  was  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  What  absurdities 
will  not  men  defend  ?  If  the  gospel  will  tolerate  Slavery,  what  will 
it  not  authorize  f  I  am  strangely  mistaken  if  this  said  Mr.  Reeves 
has  more  grace  than  is  necessary,  or  more  of  Solomon  than  the 
name."* 

What  a  glorious  land  of  liberty  that,  in  which  Christians  peace 
ably  worshipping  God,  were  liable  to  have  their  doors  broken 
open,  and  to  be  whipped  and  driven  away !  So  it  seems  there 
were  pro-slavery  advocates  formerly,  as  there  are  in  our  day ;  but 
Bishop  Asbury  judged,  if  the  gospel  would  tolerate  Slavery,  it 
would  tolerate  any  abomination  whatever.  This  does  not  look  as  if 
he  had  a  few  years  before  made  ample  provision  in  the  general  rules 
to  domicile  Slavery  in  the  Church,  either  by  inheritance,  or  under 
any  circumstances,  for  he  makes  no  exceptions.  We  are  sorry  that 
Mr.  Harper  could  have  been  weak  enough  to  dishonor  the  paper 
and  doings  of  his  own  conference,  and  thus  bow  to  the  unrighteous 
demands  of  Slavery.  This  concession,  however,  gained  nothing  for 
him,  for  the  intendant  who  had  been  ostensibly  so  solicitous  for  the 
peace  of  the  city,  suffered  a  ruthless  mob  unrestrained,  so  far  as  we 
can  learn,  to  abuse  him  and  his  more  intrepid  colleague.^  Or,  more 
probably,  he  instigated  the  mob  to  do  it,  for  mobs  against  liberty 
and  free  labor  scarcely  ever  originate  with  the  poor,  or  with  the  mass. 
*Jour.  Vol.  iii,  pp.  4,  8,  13. 


Collateral  Evidence  of  N on- Constitutional  Slaveholding.      61 

We  think  further,  that  Bishop  Asbury  and  a  general  conference 
of  gospel  ministers  were  as  capable  of  judging  what  was  proper  in 
the  premises,  as  a  small  oligarchy  of  slaveholders,  and  that  the  burn 
ing  and  public  reprobation  of  their  address,  was  not  only  an  insult 
to  a  large  body  of  respectable  citizens,  but  a  daring  outrage  on  the 
rights  of  gospel  ministers.  But  what  rights,  sacred  or  secular,  has 
Slavery  ever  regarded  in  its  furious  course  of  assumption  and  op 
pression  ?  A  system  that  can  flog  women  and  seft  children,  can  do 
almost  any  thing. 

This,  and  a  few  other  quotations  from  Mr.  Asbury's  Journal,  will 
show  what  were  his  ideas  of  our  general  rule  on  Slavery  : — that  he 
never  thought  or  intended  to  tolerate  it  in  the  Church,  under  any 
circumstances.  For  in  the  above,  he  classes  Slavery  among  the 
greatest  sins,  the  ne  plus  ultra  of  sins,  and  that  if  the  gospel,  and 
consequently,  the  general  rule  would  tolerate  it,  it  wTould  authorize 
any  thing. 

And  further,  in  going  to  Charleston,  he  says,  "  Here  are  the  rich, 
the  rice,  and  the  slaves  ;  the  last  are  awful  to  me.  "Wealthy  people 
settle  on  the  rice  lands  of  Cooper  Eiver,  and  hold  from  50  to  200  on 
a  plantation,  in  chains  of  bondage.""-  In  looking  over  the  slave- 
holding  country,  he  says  in  another  place,  "  What  blanks  are  in  this 
country,  and  how  much  worse  are  the  rich  plantations  !  If  a  man- 
of-war  \<§. a  floating  hell,  these  are  standing  ones.  Wicked  masters, 
overseers  and  negroes — cursing,  drinking,  no  Sabbath,  no  ser 
mons.'^ 

In  the  following  quotation,  he  alludes  to  cruelties  which  the  public 
sentiment  allowed  in  his  day,  and  which  it  still  allows :  "  My  spirit 
has  been  grieved  with  some  Methodists  who  hire  out  their  slaves  at 
public  places,  to  the  highest  bidder,  to  cut,  skin,  and  starve  them. 
I  think  such  members  ought  to  be  dealt  with.  On  the  side  of  the 
oppressor  there  are  law  and  power  ;  but  where  are  justice  and  mercy 
to  the  slave  ?  What  eye  will  pity,  what  hand  wrill  help,  or  even 
listen  to  their  distresses  ?  I  will  try  if  words  can  be  as  drawn  swords 
to  pierce  the  hearts  of  their  owners.":): 

These  were  probably  the  Methodists  with  whom  they  were 
Awaiting,"  or  those  who  lived  in  States  that  did  allow  civil  eman 
cipation,  and  to  whom  the  church  had  given  the  moral  adjustment 
of  what  was  right  for  the  legal  slave.  And  if  the  latter,  it  shows 
how  absolute  power  and  selfishness  would  allow  the  unprotected  to 
be  skinned  and  starved,  that  great  profits  may  come  to  the  master. 
God  never  intended  that  any  one  should  be  a  judge  in  his  own 
cause.  And  as  to  the  adjustment  of  what  is  right,  God  has  fixed 
that,  and  the  Church  has  no  right  to  transfer  it  to  another. 

More  than  fifty  years  ago  Bishop  Asbury  deprecated  the  divine 
vengeance  which  would  visit  the  Southern  country  on  account  of 
Slavery.  "  I  saw  how  the  flood  had  ploughed  up  the  streets  of  Au 
gusta  (in  Georgia.)  I  walked  over  the  ruins  for  nearly  two  miles, 
viewing  the  deep  gulf  in  the  main  street.  I  suppose  they  would 

*  Jour.  Vol.  ii,  p.  241.          f  Ibid.  Vol.  ii.  p.  185.          \  Ibid.  Vol.  ii.  p.  273. 


62      Collateral  Evidence  of  Non- Constitutional  Slaveholding. 

crucify  me  if  I  were  to  tell  them  that  this  is  the  African  flood  y  but 
if  they  could  hear  me  think,  they  would  discover  this  to  be  my  sen 
timent."* 

Other  passages  might  be  adduced,  but  these  may  suffice.  And 
the  above  certainly  gives  a  different  phase  to  Slavery  from  that 
which  many  modern  ministers  have  ffiven.  And  Bishop  Asbury 
had  an  opportunity  to  know ;  for  his  knowledge  was  not  obtained, 
like  that  of  most  modern  travellers  and  chief  ministers,  on  the  stage 
route,  from  the  interested  masters,  or  in  their  ^ay  and  splendid  par 
lors  ;  but  it  was  formed  in  the  cabins,  on  the  fields,  and  in  the  rice 
swamps  of  the  slaves  themselves.  And  Slavery  is  now  what  it  was 
then  ;  for  it  can  never  be  essentially  ameliorated.  For  it  is  a  rela 
tion  kept  together  by  force  and  tear,  and  nothing  else.  Mutual 
interest,  faith,  truth,  honesty,  duty  and  affection,  are  elements  which 
do  not  belong  to  it.  Every  element  of  which  it  is  composed  is  at 
war  with  all  that  God  has  loved  or  established.  Many  good  people 
do  not  concern  themselves  much  about  it,  because  they  do  not  know 
its  true  character,  and  will  not  believe,  although  such  a  one  as  Bishop 
Asbury  compares  many  plantations  to  "  standing  hells,"  and  Metho 
dist  plantations  are  not  beyond  the  average,  according  to  my  obser 
vation  of  other  plantations. 

In  the  preceding  I  have  mostly  dwelt  upon  the  testimonies  of  the 
early  Methodists.  I  shall  show*  now  what  they  did.  Their  testi 
mony  was  not  a  mere  abstraction  in  the  discipline.  It  was  a  living, 
working  principle  :  their  faith  had  works. 

In  the  case  of  Dr.  Coke  and  others,  we  have  shown  that  the  first 
Methodists  preached  publicly  against  not  only  Slavery,  but  against 
slaveholding.  And  these  vigorous  efforts  were  not  in  vain.  There 
was  a  general  inquiry  awakened  concerning  the  religious  and  politi 
cal  bearing  of  Slavery,  and  many  were  convinced  of  its  unrighteous 
ness  and  emancipated  their  slaves.  Under  one  sermon,  as  we  have 
seen,  twenty-three  slaves  were  known  to  have  been  set  free  ;  and 
how  many  others,  as  the  result  of  other  faithful  warnings,  eternity 
alone  can  tell.  Bishop  Asbury  records  in  Annamessex,  Maryland, 
in  1788,  "  that  most  of  our  members  in  these  parts  have  freed  their 
slaves."  There  are  a  few  yet  remaining  at  the  South  who  well  re 
member  the  sacrifices  which  they  or  their  fathers  had  made  to  the 
demands  of  justice,  and  to  gain  a  standing  in  the  Methodist  Episco 
pal  Church.  Emancipations  must  have  been  considerable,  and 
mostly  through  the  means  of  our  Church,  for  just  at  that  time  we  do 
not  learn  that  there  was  any  considerable  effort  from  any  other 
quarter.  For  according  to  the  census  of  1790,  there  were  in  Mary 
land  alone  8,043  free  persons  of  color,  and  in  1800  this  number  had 
increased  to  19,538.  And  many  others  of  Maryland  and  Virginia, 
who  had  liberated  their  slaves,  liad  removed  with  them  to  Ohio. 

Among  the  early  Methodists  there  was  a  holy  chivalry  in  doing 

f)od.   Towards  the  close  of  the  last  century  there  were  few,  between 
ew  England  and  the  Carolinas,  who  had  not  heard,  or  who  had 
*  Jour.  Vol.  ii,  p.  246. 


Collateral  Evidence  of  Non-Constitutional  Slaveholding.      63 

not  sung,  the  ballad  "  The  Banks  of  the  Lovely  Ohio."  Kentucky 
was  much  richer  in  soil,  and  to  the  Virginian  it  was  much  nearer. 
But  Ohio  was  the  land  of  Liberty  ;  on  her  soil  Freedom  could  grow 
and  thrive  without  stint — without  the  bligh tings  and  the  curses  of 
Slavery.  And  thither,  from  the  slave  States,  many  Methodists  and 
Methodist  preachers  went,  together  with  all  their  freed  men. 

It  is  related,  I  think  of  John  Sayle,  long  a  worthy  member  in  Vir 
ginia,  and  among  the  first  emigrants  to  the  West,  that  as  soon  as  he 
and  his  former  slaves  had  reached  the  opposite  bank  of  "  the  lovely 
Ohio,"  that,  leaping  from  the  craft  that  had  ferried  them  over,  they 
embraced  the  very  ground  in  their  arms  ;  and  that  then,  all  of  them 
on  their  knees,  thanked  God  aloud  for  bringing  them  from  a  land  of 
oppression  into  a  land  of  liberty.  And  that  after  inhaling  its  free 
air,  and  making  the  shores  reverberant  with  their  hallelulas,  the  for 
mer  master  and  slaves  shook  hands  together,  saluting  each  other  now 
in  the  relation  of  man  to  man,  untrammeled  by  Slavery  and  the 
disabilities  which  iniquitous  laws  had  placed  upon  them.  And  now 
this  exultant  company  having  reached  a  free  soil,  enjoying  both  the 
freedom  of  speech  and  the  blessing  of  a  pure  and  a  full  gospel,  went 
forth  into  the  wilderness,  beginning,  as  it  were,  the  world  anew. 

Most  Methodists,  and  nearly  every  preacher  of  this  period,  ab 
horred  the  practice  of  Slavery.  James  Axley,  a  backwoods  preacher, 
but  always  good  and  true  to  a  pure  Christianity,  had  his  "  trinity  of 
devils"  to  fight  in  almost  every  sermon  which  he  preached.  These 
were  Dress,  Eum,  and  Slavery.  And  Slavery  was  not  the  least  in 
the  triad.  He  hated  it  intensely,  and  he  loved  to  hate  it,  and  to 
drive  into  it  on  all  occasions  with  his  characteristic  force  and  blunt- 
ness. 

It  is  an  old  adage,  that  wherever  there  is  a  will  there  is  a  way. 
And  when  our  entire  Church,  ministers  and  members,  shall  be  thor 
oughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  freedom,  and  shall  be  deeply 
impressed  with  a  keen  sense  of  the  moral  obliquity  of  slaveholding, 
then  there  will  be  many  ways  by  which  they  can  rid  themselves  and 
the  Church  of  this  enormous  evil.  We  fear  that  it  is  really  this 
willingness,  in  most  cases,  which  is  chiefly  wanting.  We  may  wish 
the  abolition  of  Slavery  as  the  sinner  wishes  for  Heaven,  but  are  we 
both  willing  to  make  the  requisite  sacrifices  to  obtain  them  ? 

We  are  happy  to  find  an  example  in  early  Methodism,  in  the  Life 
of  the  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson,  to  illustrate  the  possibility  and 
practicability  of  emancipation,  even  in  those  States  which  do  not 
allow  civil  freedom  to  the  emancipated.  And  although  Maryland, 
the  State  in  which  this  took  place,  might  have  permitted  civil  eman 
cipation,  yet  Mr.  G.  effected  it  without  any  reference  to  State  regu 
lations,  and  could  have  done  the  same  in  South  Carolina  or  any 
other  State.  Now  what  has  been  done  can  be  done  again,  and  ought 
to  be  done  by  every  Methodist  in  the  United  States.  The  Rev. 
Freeborn  Garrettson  having  lost  his  first  manifestation,  and  being  in 
great  distress,  writes : 

"  I  continued  reading  the  Bible  till  eight,  and  then,  under  a  sense 


6&      Collateral  Evidence  of  Non- Constitutional  Slaveholding. 

0f  duty,  called  the  family  together  for  prayer.  As  I  stood  with  a 
liook  in  my  hand  in  the  act  of  giving  out  a  hymn,  this  thought 
powerfully  struck  my  mind  :  "  It  is  not  right  to  keep  your  fellow 
creatures  in  bondage  j  you  must  let  the  oppressed  go  free"  I  knew 
fcliis  to  be  the  same  blessed  voice  which  had  spoken  to  me  before  ; 
till  then  I  had  never  suspected  that  the  practice  of  slave  keeping 
was  wrong ;  I  had  not  read  a  book  on  the  subject,  nor  had  been  told 
so  by  any.  I  paused  a  minute,  and  then  replied :  £  Lord,  the  op 
pressed  shall  go  free.'  And  I  was  as  dear  of  thtm  in  my  mind  as 
xfl  never  owned  one.  I  told  them  they  did  not  belong  to  me  ;  that 
1  did  not  desire  their  services  without  making  them  a  compensation. 
I  was  now  at  liberty  to  proceed  in  worship.  After  singing  I  kneeled 
to  pray.  Had  I  the  tongue  of  an  angel  I  could  not  fully  describe 
what  1  felt ;  all  my  dejection  and  that  melancholy  gloom  which  op 
pressed  me  vanished  in  a  moment,  and  a  divine  sweetness  ran 
through  my  whole  frame.  It  was  God,  not  man,  that  taught  me  the 
impropriety  of  holding  slaves,  and  I  shall  never  be  able  to  praise 
Him  enough  for  it.  My  very  heart  has  bled  since  that  for  slave 
holders,  especially  those  who  make  a  profession  of  religion.  For  I 
"believe  it  to  be  a  crying  sin." 

In  the  above  plain,  unvarnished,  yet  highly  beautiful  narrative, 
we  have  an  exhibition  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  an 
awakened  and  an  obedient  mind  ;  and  also  an  exemplification  of  the 
doctrines,  measures,  and  practice  of  Abolitionism. 

His  creed.  "  It  is  not  right  to  hold  in  bondage."  This  is  the 
pith,  point  and  main  spring  of  all  real  Anti-Slaveryism.  God  taught 
it  to  him.  The  relation  between  master  and  slave  was  not  the  rela 
tion  between  man  arid  man,  but  that  between  man  and  brute.  It 
Lad  no  warrant  in  God's  word.  One  human  being  could  not  own 
another,  for  this  would  be  the  entire  absorption  of  one  man  into 
another,  annihilating  at  once  his  individuality  in  creation  and  his 
accountability  to  God.  It  would  be  deranging  the  whole  order  of 
heaven;  defacing  the  crowning  distinction  between  persons  and 
things ;  despoiling  man  of  the  dominion  which  God  gave  him,  and 
impiously  attempting  to  pluck  down  an  heir  of  immortality  to  the 
level  of  merchandize. 

His  measures.  He  avowed  his  creed;  he  bore  his  testimony. 
Knowing  that  public  opinion  in  this  country  is  the  basis  on  which 
iniquitous  laws  and  usages  were  founded,  was  only  the  aggregate  of 
Individual  opinion,  he  immediately  withdrew  his  support  from  it. 
He  did  not  inquire  how  it  would  be  received ;  whether  the  rulers 
would  approve  of  it ;  or  what  would  be  the  consequences.  It  was 
sufficient  for  him  to  know  that  it  was  wrong,  and  that  it  was  his  duty 
to  do  right.  Duty  is  ours  ;  consequences  belong  to  God.  He  will 
take  care  of  his  own  work.  A  good  deed  can  never  really  have  bad 
consequences,  no  more  than  a  good  tree  can  have  bad  fruit. 

His  practice.  He  let  the  oppressed  go  free ;  he  dissolved  imme 
diately  and  for  ever  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  He  let  go  his 
bold  on  his  fellow  men ;  he  refused  any  longer  to  take  the  advantage, 


Collateral  Evidence  of  Non- Constitutional  Slaveholding.      65 

which  the  unrighteous  law  of  the  State  gave  him,  of  taking  his 
neighbor's  work  without  wages.  He  said  nothing  about  "  legal  re 
lations  ;*'  perhaps  he  thought  nothing  about  them.  If  he  did  he 
could  defend  and  protect  all  his  former  slaves  who  chose  to  remain 
with  him.  He  yielded  at  once  to  the  impulsive  dictations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  he  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  and  God  blessed  and  sus 
tained  him. 

Now  all  that  this  man  of  God  did  in  his  case,  every  Methodist 
and  every  Christian  ought  to  do  everywhere ;  for  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  spirit  and  letter  of  our  discipline  requires  it  from  them ; 
it  requires  the  abandonment  of  all  "  enslaving."  Nothing  is  said 
of  "  certain  circumstances."  This  is  a  fiction  of  later  times,  unknown 
in  those  better  days.  A  state  of  guardianship,  our  Church  supposes, 
in  those  States  in  which  the  slave  cannot  obtain  legal  emancipation ; 
but  the  real  relation  of  master  and  slave  she  never  originally  in 
tended. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


POLITICAL     AND     ECCLESIASTICAL     ACTION     AGAINST    SLAVERY. 


PETITIONS  TO  THE  STATE  LEGISLATURES  —  GEN.  WASHINGTON  —  ADDRESS  OF 
THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1796  CIRCULATED  —  WESLEY'S  THOUGHTS 
ON  SLAVERY  —  UNITED  EFFORT  —  DURING  WHICH  THE  CHURCH  PROSPERS 
— ADVERSE  INFLUENCES  —  COTTON  GIN  —  PURCHASE  OF  LOUISIANA. 


first  efforts  of  our  fathers  for  the  extirpation  of  Slavery  were 
wholly  of  a  religious  or  ecclesiastical  character.  They  attempted 
to  bring  the  master  and  slave  under  the  same  church  discipline,  and 
as  in  all  other  cases  to  apply  the  same  law  and  the  same  adminis 
tration  to  both  classes.  But  in  carrying  out  the  laws  of  Christianity 
they  were  continually  coming  in  collision  with  the  usages  of  Sla 
very,  and  the  iniquitous  laws  of  the  State.  The  requirements  of 
the  one  were  encroaching  on  the  other.  In  consequence  of  this, 
and,  as  they  were  aiming  to  reform  the  continent,  they  began  to  avail 
themselves  of  their  constitutional  privilege  of  petition,  to  remove 
Slavery,  that  they  might  establish  a  consistent  church  discipline, 
and  a  pure  unmutilated  Christianity. 

For  at  this  time  they  do  not  appear  to  have  thought  of  engrafting 
the  Christian  religion  on  a  slaveholding  community.  For  this  pur 
pose  the  conference  of  1785.  petitioned  the  legislature  of  North 
Carolina,  that  masters  who  wished  it  might  have  liberty  to  admit 
their  slaves  to  civil  and  legal  emancipation.  Another,  of  more  ex 
tensive  requirements,  was  presented  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
Virginia.  These  petitions  were  signed  by  the  conference,  and  a 
copy  of  them  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  each  preacher,  to  circulate 
on  his  circuit  and  to  obtain  signatures  to  them  among  the  people. 
Many  eminent  men  were  not  only  favorable  to  this  measure,  but 
were  quite  sanguine  of  its  success. — Dr.  CokJs  Life. 

What  was  contained  in  these  petitions  cannot  now  be  satisfac 
torily  known.  Whether  they  were  accidentally  lost,  or  by  some  one 
suppressed,  we  cannot  tell.  The  general  conference  this  year  must 
certainly  have  kept  a  journal,  and  it  is  remarkable  that  they  are  not 
to  be  found  among  their  papers  or  those  of  Bishop  Asbury.  The 
Bishop  frequently  alludes  to  this  address  in  his  journals.  The  docu 
ment  itself,  and  the  notoriety  which  it  gained  at  that  day,  the  op 
position  with  which  it  met,  and  the  legal  enactments  of  which  it  is 
said  to  have  been  the  cause,  are  all  by  far  too  important  features  in 
the  early  history  of  -our  church  to  be  passed  over  in  silence,  and  we 
cannot  but  regret  their  disappearance. 


Political  and  Ecclesiastical  Action  against  Slavery.        67 

But  that  the  lost  petitions  contained  good  anti  slavery  doctrines, 
is  quite  certain  from  the  fact  that "their  majesties"  burned  them, 
as  Mr.  Asbury  called  the  "  peers  of  Charleston."  But  although 
South  Carolina  treated  them  contemptuously,  the  other  southern 
legislatures  entertained  them  with  respect. 

During  this  year  Dr.  Coke  and  Bishop  Asbury  waited  on  Gen. 
"Washington,  who  received  them  politely,  and  gave  them  his  opinion 
against  Slavery.  That  he  was  not  only  favorable  to  emancipation 
in  general,  but  to  the  object  of  their  petition,  both  ecclesiastically 
and  politically,  may  be  inferred  from  a  letter  which  he  sent  about 
this  time  to  a  distinguished  individual,  in  which  he  says — "  There 
is  no  person  living  who  wishes  more  sincerely  than  I  do,  to  see  some 
plan  for  the  abolition  of  Slavery."  And  in  another  letter  written 
about  the  same  time  he  said — "  There  is  only  one  proper  and  effec 
tual  mode  by  which  the  abolition  of  Slavery  can  be  accomplished, 
and  that  is  by  legislative  authority ;  and  this,  as  far  as  my  suffrage 
can  go,  shall  not  be  wanting." 

These  were  the  sentiments  and  the  pledges  of  the  father  of  our 
country,  and  they  were  generally  those  of  the  great  body  of  the 
American  people  of  that  day. 

In  1795,  it  was  recommended  by  the  traveling  ministry  of  the 
M.  E.  Church,  that  the  first  Friday  in  March,  1796,  should  be  held 
as  a  .most  solemn  day  of  fasting,  and  that  in  common  with  other 
sins,  the  Church  should  "  lament  the  deep-rooted  vassalage  that  still 
reigneth  in  many  parts  of  these  United  States,  and  should  pray  that 
Africans  and  Indians  may  help  to  fill  the  pure  Church  of  God." — 
Min.  1795.  And  shortly  after,  such  was  the  success  of  the  efforts 
of  our  Church  in  reference  to  the  emancipation  of  slaves  and  their 
conversion  to  God,  that  the  conference,  in  their  thanksgiving  address 
of  the  next  year,  thanked  God  "  for  African  liberty,"  and  goes  on 
to  say,  "  we  feel  gratitude  that  so  many  thousands  of  these  poor 
people  ai'Q/ree  and  pious." — Bound  Min.  p.  16i. 

ADDRESSES  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCES. — About  the  year  1796, 
the  general  conference  put  forth  an  address  to  the  Church  on  the 
subject  of  Slavery,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract. 

"  What  regulation  shall  be  made  for  the  extirpation  of  the  crying 
evil  of  African  Slavery  ? 

Ans.  1. — We  declare  that  we  are  more  than  ever  convinced 
of  the  great  evil  of  African  Slavery  which  still  exists  in  these  United 
States.  The  preachers  and  other  members  of  society  are  requested 
to  consider  the  subject  of  negro  Slavery  with  deep  attention,  and 
that  they  impart  to  the  general  conference,  through  the  medium  of 
the  yearly  conferences,  or  otherwise,  any  important  truths  on  the 
subject,  that  the  conference  may  have  full  light ;  in  order  to  take 
further  steps  towards  the  eradicating  this  enormous  evil  from  that 
part  of  the  Church  of  God  to  which  they  are  connected." 

And  again  in  1800,  they  required  the  entire  Church  to  memorial 
ize  the  respective  legislatures,  for  the  emancipation  of  Slavery. 


68        Political  and  Ecclesiastical  Action  against  Slavery. 

"  The  annual  conferences  are  directed  to  draw  up  addresses  for 
the  gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  to  the  legislatures  of  those 
states  in  which  no  general  laws  have  been  passed  for  that  purpose. 
These  addresses  shall  urge  in  the  most  respectful  but  pointed  man 
ner  the  necessity  of  a  law  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves ; 
proper  committees  shall  be  appointed  by  the  annual  conferences 
out  of  the  most  respectable  of  our  friends  for  the  conducting  of  this 
business ;  and  the  presiding  elders,  elders,  deacons,  and  traveling 
preachers  shall  procure  as  many  proper  signatures  as  possible  to 
these  addresses,  and  give  all  the  assistance  in  their  power  in  every 
respect,  to  aid  the  committees  and  to  further  this  blessed  under 
taking.  Let  this  be  continued  from  year  to  year,  till  the  desired  end 
be  accomplished." — Discipline,  1801. 

These  addresses,  as  all  must  see,  instituted  a  perfect  system  of 
agitation.  But  the  agitation  did  not  affect  the  peace  of  the  Church 
injuriously.  Perhaps  it  rather  promoted  it  by  giving  vent  eccle 
siastically  to  the  general  feeling  of  abhorrence  to  "  this  crying  sin." 
So  far  from  requiring  the  Church  "  wholly  to  refrain,"  to  be  still,  or 
to  have  a  "breathing  spell,"  the  conference  of  1801  said  "let  this 
be  continued  from  year  to  year,  till  the  desired  end  be  accomplished." 

The  object  of  this  address  was  not  "to  regulate  the  practice  of 
Slavery  in  the  M.  E.  Church,"  as  a  reputed  history  of  our  Church 
intimates ;  but  on  the  contrary,  to  extirpate  it  from  her,  to  root  it  out 
as  an  execrable  weed  which  the  enemy  had  sown  within  her 
sacred  enclosure.  They  had  labored  with  various  success  for 
twenty  years,  almost  single-handed,  against  this  giant  iniquity ; 
much  light  had  been  diffused,  and  very  many  slaves  had  been  eman 
cipated,  the  descendants  of  whom  have  since  arisen  to  wealth  and 
respectability,  particularly  in  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia.  But  still 
Slavery  existed,  and  like  the  foul  spirit  was  seeking  rest  even  in  the 
Church  of  God.  Yet  the  conference  was  not  discouraged  ;  so  far 
from  yielding  to  it,  having  learned  more  of  its  character,  it  de 
clared  they  were  more  than  ever  convinced  of  its  evil  nature,  and 
resolved  once  more  to  make  a  vigorous  effort  to  eradicate  this  enor 
mous  evil  from  the  Church.  For  this  purpose  they  called  upon  the 
preachers,  and  other  members  of  the  church,  to  agitate  the  question, 
that  they  might  have  full  light  to  act  wisely  and  efficiently  in  the 
premises. 

Whether  this  conference,  or  that  of  a  recent  date,  which  required 
all  "  wholly  to  refrain,"  acted  more  in  agreement  with  the  spirit  and 
letter  of  the  constitution  of  bur  Church,  we  must  leave  our  readers 
to  judge.  One  thing  is  Certain  :  both  acts  could  not  have  been  con 
stitutional.  And  as  the  only  tribunal  in  our  Church,  to  test  the 
constitutionality  of  all  the  acts  of  the  general  conference,  is  what 
Bishop  Emory  very  properly  called  the  "pious,  enlightened  judg 
ment  of  our  extended  communion"  every  one  must  judge  for  him 
self.  And  consequently,  ministers  and  members  ought  to  study  our 
early  history,  examine  the  principles  on  which  our  Church  was 
founded,  so  as  to  be  able  to  resist  every  unconstitutional  measure, 
and  to  keep  the  Church  on  the  true  basis  on  which  she  was  founded. 


Political  and  Ecclesiastical  Action  against  Slavery.        69 

And,  in  addition  to  the  circulation  of  anti-slavery  petitions  and 
addresses,  there  was  the  distribution  of  "That  Fire  Brand,"  as  some 
have  called  Mr.  Wesley's  "  Thoughts  on  Slavery"* — a  tract  that 
did  not  treat  its  subject  very  gingerly.  It  was  written  before  the 
horrid  character  of  Slavery  had  been  disguised,  or  softened  down  to 
"  Delicate  Question,"  the  "  Peculiar  Institution."  It  was  also  written 
by  one  who  called  things  by  their  right  names,  and  placed  Slavery 
fully  and  squarely  in  the  category  with  other  sins,  or  rather,  by  way 
of  eminence,  he  called  it  "  the  complicated,  the  execrable  villainy." 

Here,  then,  the  whole  Church  was  organized  into  a  society  for 
anti-slavery  agitation.  Certainly,  all  this  did  not  look  like  "  acqui 
escing  "  that  Slavery  might  remain  in  the  Church,  or  that  they  must 
alter  the  whole  frame-work  of  our  constitution  to  get  it  out.  There 
was  not  one  word  about  altering  the  general  rules  to  get  Slavery  out 
of  the  Church  at  that  day.  Her  annual  conferences  were  inviting 
free  discussion,  and  seeking  for  more  light ;  her  preachers  and  other 
officers  were  circulating  the  most  thorough  anti-slavery  tract  that 
was  ever  published ;  they  were  obtaining  signatures  and  petitioning 
the  legislative  bodies,  and  using  every  means  in  their  power  to  have 
Slavery  abolished.  They  had  at  that  time  no  "  breathing  spell "  at 
all,  for  they  knew  and  felt  that  this  enormous  evil  was  ever  active 
in  corrupting  the  Church,  and  in  hindering  the  work  of  God  among 
them. 

Nor  did  the  early  Methodists  lose  anything  in  public  estimation 
by  these  measures ;  nor  were  they,  except  in  a  few  cases,  shut  out 
from  access  to  the  slaves.  But  on  the  contrary,  the  moral  power 
which  they  gained  by  these  measures  was  immense  with  almost 
every  class.  Even  the  slaveholders  respected  them ;  the  masses  of 
the  people  sympathised  with  them  ;  and  in  reference  to  the  slaves, 
"if  it  were  possible,  they  would  have  plucked  out  their  eyes  to  give 
unto  them." 

It  is  one  of  the  veriest  devices  of  the  Devil,  to  suppose  that  min 
isters  of  the  gospel  must  abate  somewhat  the  integrity  of  truth,  to 
conciliate  the  master,  that  they  may  find  access  to  the  slave.  These 
pleas  of  necessity,  and  of  certain  circumstances,  which  seem  to  allow 
the  gospel  a  pliancy  to  existing  evils,  are  easily  seen  through,  and 
when  they  are,  they  divest  that  very  gospel,  in  the  estimation  of 
those  to  whom  it  comes  in  this  way,  of  nearly  all  its  sacredness. 
The  preacher  thus  coming  is  shorn  of  his  strength ;  stript  of  his 
moral  power ;  and  appears,  in  many  respects,  less  than  a  secular 
man.  I  have  heard  even  slaveholders  speak  contemptuously  of  such 
ministers.  And  when  ministers  of  this  kind,  who  have  been  thus 
caressed,  and  Jed,  and  feed  by  the  master,  when  they  come  to  the 
poor  slaves,  how  often  do 'the  latter  say  in  their  hearts,  and  many  of 
them  out  openly,  u  mighty  unsart'n  what  'em  arter." 

After  this  last  address  of  the  General  Conference,  which  had  met 
with  some  opposition,  several  of  the  preachers  began  to  falter  in  this 

*  So  late  as  1803,  the  Hymn  Books  of  our  Church,  published  by  Ezekiel 
Cooper,  contained  advertisements  of  the  "  Tract  on  Slavery/' 


70        Political  and  Ecclesiastical  Action  against  Slavery. 

noble  enterprise.  Many  of  the  members  of  the  first  conference, 
who  had  from  the  beginning  made  battle  agaist  this  giant  iniquity, 
had,  at  this  time,  fallen  in  death,  or  had  been  superannuated  by  in 
firmities  or  years.  And  there  were,  no  doubt,  a  few  of  those  all  the 
while,  who  had  never  entered  heartily  into  the  spirit  of  emancipa 
tion,  and  who,  with  the  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  thought  others  were  "going 
too  far."  Our  Church,  however,  generally  maintained  the  spirit 
and  letter  of  her  first  position,  till  about  the  time  of  the  organization 
of  the  first  delegated  general  conference,  in  1808;  although  it  is 
evident  there  was  a  great  diversity  and  remissness  in  the  administra 
tion  of  her  rules,  particularly  in  those  States  which  did  not  allow  civil 
liberty  to  the  emancipated.  The  conferences  appear  to  have  been  at  a 
loss  to  frame  a  rule  which  would  meet  the  case,  and  consequently  they 
left  the  adjustment  of  what  was, right  to  the  administration  of  the 
preacher,  and  to  the  conscience  of  the  slaveholder.  And  for  this 
purpose,  in  1796,  the  conference  required  that  "  no  slaveholder  shall 
be  received  into  the  society  till  the  preacher  who  has  the  oversight 
of  the  circuit  shall  have  spoken  to  him  fully  and  faithfully  on  the 
subject  of  Slavery."  The  requirement  of  this  conference  [1796]  at 
the  last  general  one  in  Indianapolis,  was  made  a  matter  of  pleasantry, 
as  a  very  easy  penalty.  But  the  pith  of  the  whole  matter  lay  in  the 
strong  anti-slavery  feeling  which  possessed  the  preachers  of  that  day, 
and  which  was  deemed,  by  the  conference,  a  sufficient  offset  on  the 
part  of  the  Church  and  the  slave,  against  the  encroachment  or  sel 
fishness  of  the  master.  This  power  vested  in  the  administrator,  these 
modern  Methodists  did  not,  or  could  not,  appreciate.  But  it  was, 
in  reality,  "  the  keys,"  and  many  slaveholders  were  locked  out  of 
the  Church  by  them  in  those  days  by  the  power  conferred  upon  them 
by  this  requirement. 

Unhappily,  about  the  time  our  Church  began  to  abate  her  former 
efforts,  under  the  delusion  that  the  leaven  of  the  gospel  would  work 
out  emancipation  to  the  slave,  several  new  events  arose  to  give  a 
new  impulse  to  Slavery,  and  to  defeat  the  work  of  emancipation 
which  our  Church  had  begun.  Mr.  Whitney,  a  New  Englander, 
resident  in  Georgia,  had  invented  the  cotton  gin,  a  machine  by 
which  the  labor  of  one  hundred  hands  could  be  performed  by  one, 
aided  by  a  one  horse  power.  Cotton,  consequently,  could  be  raised 
.much  cheaper,  and  the  demand  for  it  increased  beyond  all  former 
precedent.  Millions,  who  had  never  enjoyed  its  benefits,  could  now 
afford  its  use,  and  the  demand  has  ever  since  gone  on  increasing 
in  proportion  to  the  reduction  in  its  price.  So  that  by  the  general 
laws  of  trade  and  improvement,  that  which  brought  comforts  to 
millions,  for  a  while  has  protracted  the  bondage  of  the  slave. 

The  purchase  of  Louisiana  also  opened 'the  rich  alluvial  lands  in 
the  lower  valley  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  planners  on  the  Atlantic, 
whose  lands  had  already  become  exhausted.  Emigration  soon  be 
gan  to  move  westward  ;  slaves  rose  in  value,  and  the  domestic  slave 
trade  soon  commenced  its  horrid  career. 

Thus  the  prospect  of  sudden  and  immense  wealth  checked  the 


Political  and  Ecclesiastical  Action  against  Slavery.        71 

rising  indignation  against  Slavery,  and  almost  entirely  nullified  every 
ecclesiastical  rule  on  the  subject,  and  even  invaded  the  constitutional 
article  which,  after  1808,  forbade  the  foreign  slave  trade. 

Our  Church  soon  felt  the  deleterious  effect  of  this  new  impulse. 
And  another  circumstance  of  long  standing  was  continually  lessen 
ing  the  anti-slavery  feeling  in  our  Church,  and  was  consequently 
nullifying  most  of  her  efforts.  The  South  made  little  or  no  provi 
sion  for  married  preachers,  and  whenever  one  married  he  was  obliged 
to  locate.  These  marriages  were  generally  in  slaveholding  families ; 
and  consequently  the  located  preacher  became  interested  in  slave 
property.  And  these  located  preachers,  in  many  cases,  had  been, 
the  most  talented  and  influential  members  of  the  conference ;  and 
after  their  location,  and  consequent  interest  in  Slavery,  they  continued 
to  exert  an  immense  influence  over  the  younger  and  less  experienced 
traveling  preachers,  and  afterward  claimed  a  representation  in  the 
general  conference.  In  1824,  in  form  this  claim  was  disallowed, 
but  in  reality  they  gained  more  than  they  had  asked.  The  door  was 
opened  for  their  re-admission  into  the  itinerancy  without  the  least 
idea  that  they  were  to  do  itinerant  work.  For  how  could  they  carry 
their  plantations,  and  from  ten  to  a  hundred  slaves,  around  with 
them  to  the  appointments?  They  were  then  necessarily  accom 
modated  ;  became  mighty  men — men  of  renown — elected  to  gene 
ral  conference  ;  and  ultimately  these  men  directed  the  Church. 


CHAPTER  X. 


SUCCESS     OF     FIRST     EFFORTS    TO     EXTIRPATE     SLAVERY. 


GREAT   REVIVAL   OF    RELIGION    AMONG    THE    COLORED    PEOPLE.    1780-1800 

—  GREAT  ADDITIONS  TO  THE  CHURCH  —  UNPRECEDENTED  EMANCIPATION  — 
PREACHERS   TRY   TO   BRING   MASTER  AND   SLAVE   UNDER   THE   SAME   RULE 

—  FAILED  —  SLAVERY    IN    THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH    AND    IN    OURS    CON 
TRASTED —  MASTER'S  DUTY — SLAVE'S  DUTY — PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  HAD  BUT 
ONE   LAW  FOR  BOTH  —  IN  EFFECT  WE  HAVE  Two  —  UNWRITTEN   LAWS  OF 
SLAVERY  CARRIED  OUT  IN  OUR  CHURCH — THEY  SANCTION  IT  —  THEY  MORE 
THAN  NEUTRALIZE  ALL  WRITTEN  TESTIMONY  AGAINST  IT. 


WHEREVER  the  Word  of  God  is  faithfully  preached,  "  it  shall 
never  return  void ;  but  it  shall  accomplish/'  in  some  way,  "  the 
thing  whereunto  it  was  sent." 

The  vigorous  efforts  which  had  been  put  forth  by  the  early  Metho 
dists  were  not  in  vain.  The  storm  of  opposition  which  had  been 
raised  only  tended  to  send  the  doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  on  the  subject  of  Slavery  more  rapidly  over  the  land,  and 
to  deepen  them  more  fully  in  the  affections  and  understanding  of 
the  people.  These  efforts  fixed  her  character  at  that  period.  In 
the  language  of  Southern  testimony,  "Methodism  at  that  day, 
whether  at  the  North  or  South,  was  identified  with  the  most  deadly 
opposition  to  Slavery."  The  slave,  and  the  colored  people  in  gene 
ral,  had  substantial  evidence  that  the  preachers  were  laboring  both 
for  their  temporal  and  spiritual  benefit. 

Up  to  this  time  the  Church  was  striving  to  establish  among  all 
the  people,  white  and  colored,  the  whole  Gospel,  a  pure,  unmuti- 
lated  Christianity.  She  had  not  yet  attempted  to  ingraft  the  reli 
gion  that  is  from  above  on  a  slaveholding  community.  Her  efforts 
were  then  to  extirpate  the  one,  that  she  might  the  more  fully  estab 
lish  the  other.  How  often  Bishop  Asbury  exclaims  in  the  follow 
ing,  or  similar  language :  "  O,  when  will  liberty  be  extended  to  the 
sable  sons  of  Africa?  We  trust  the  period  will  come." 

When  about  leaving  South  Carolina  for  the  North,  he  records  his 
feelings  for  the  poor  slaves  in  the  following  tender  effusions :  "  The 
poor  Africans  brought  their  blessings,  and  their  wishes,  and  their 
prayers.  Dear  souls !  May  the  Lord  provide  them  pastors  after 
his  own  heart."  Again  he  says  :  "  I  am  ready  to  conclude  that  we 
are  not  sent  to  the  whites  of  this  place  (the  extreme  South),  except 
to  a  very  few,  but  to  the  poor  Africans." 


Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery. 


73 


The  preachers  were  laboring,  not  so  much  to  make  them  good 
servants  as  to  make  them  good,  intelligent  Christians.  For  this  pur 
pose  they  exhorted  "our  people  to  teach  their  slaves  to  read,  then 
they  would  understand  preaching  much  better"  In  addition  to 
this,  the  conference  in  Charleston,  1790,  "  Resolved  to  establish 
Sunday  Schools  for  poor  children,  both  white  and  Hack"*  How 
far  this  good  purpose  was  carried  into  effect  we  have  not  the  means 
of  knowing ;  but  it  shows,  at  least,  the  spirit  and  sympathy  of  the 
Southern  Church  at  this  period  to  benefit  the  slaves  ;  that  even  in 
Charleston,  the  foreign  slave  market,  the  hot-bed  of  the  whole  evil, 
and  the  seat  of  the  Southern  aristocracy,  a  Methodist  conference 
should  attempt  to  elevate  the  slaves  and  colored  people  to  the  ad 
vantages  of  Christianity  and  civilization. 

But  while  the  above  efforts  were  put  forth,  the  slaves  at  the  South 
regarded  the  Methodists,  especially  the  Methodist  preachers,  as  their 
best  friends.  They  knew  them  not  only  as  non-slaveholders,  but  as 
laboring  for  their  freedom.  They  looked  upon  them  almost  as 
angels  sent  'from  heaven.  They  passed  through  every  obstacle  to 
hear  them.  The  Gospel  which  they  preached  was  to  them  truly  a 
joyful  sound.  It  was  to  them  life  from  the  dead,  the  precursor  of 
that  jubilee  which  was  to  "  proclaim  liberty  throughout  all  the 
land  to  all  the  inhabitants  thereof."  In  no  period  of  our  history 
was  the  proportional  increase  of  the  colored  people  in  our  Church 
so  great.  They  almost  literally  crowded  it.  The  following  statis 
tics,  taken  from  the  printed  minutes,  will  show  the  proportion  be 
tween  the  white  and  colored  members  in  the  slave  States,  and  their 
respective  increase  per  centum,  during  those  years  in  which  the 
greatest  efforts  were  made  for  their  emancipation.  There  may  be 
some  inaccuracies  in  estimating  what  circuits  were  situated  within 
the  bounds  of  the  present  slaveholding  States,  but  the  calculation 
will  be  sufficiently  definite  for  our  present  purpose.  As  there  was 
no  distinction  between  the  white  and  colored  members  until  1786, 
we  can  go  no  further  back. 


Tears. 

'Whites. 

Colored. 

Annual  Increase. 
Whites. 

Per  Cent 

Colored. 

1786 

16,791 

890 

1787 

19,300 

3,780 

14 

212 

1788 

•  26,242 

6,422 

36 

69 

1790 

37,016 

11,682 

44 

77 

1793 

38,413 

15,308 

3 

34 

From  the  above  it  will  be  seen  that  the  increase  of  the  colored 
membership  in  seven  years  was  more  than  1600  per  centum,  while 
that  of  the  white  members,  for  the  same  period,  was  only  128  per 
cent.  The  colored  people,  from  being  a  mere  fraction  in  1786,  in 
creased  within  seven  years  to  become  between  one  third  and  one 
half,  or  more  than  40  per  cent,  of  the  entire  membership,  within 


#Jour.  Vol.  ii,  p.  65. 
6 


74:  Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery. 

what  at  this  time  constitutes  the  slaveholding  States.  This  un 
exampled  increase  in  one  department  of  the  Church  was  not  inci 
dental.  By  a  careful  examination  of  the  history  of  these  times,  it 
will  be  seen  that  it  had  its  foundation  in  the  sympathy  and  unremit 
ting  efforts  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  christianize  the 
slaves,  and  raise  them  from  their  abject  condition  to  the  rank  of 
intelligent  beings. 

These  labors  were  not  lost  upon  them.  No  people  under  heaven 
more  gratefully  appreciated  the  efforts  of  the  first  Methodist  preach 
ers  than  did  the  colored  people  at  the  South  How  eagerly  they 
drank  in  the  balmy  sound  of  that  Gospel  which  was  pure,  peaceable, 
full  of  good  fruits,  without  partiality,  and  without  hypocrisy.  The 
colored  man  may  be  vilified,  and  supposed  to  be  incapable  of  dis 
cernment,  but  he  has  always  been  capable  of  discovering  who  were 
his  real  friends,  and  to  determine  when  these  friends  have  changed 
their  course  toward  him.  And  at  no  period  was  there  such  a  revi 
val  of  pure  religion,  or  a  greater  in-gathering  into  the  Church,  than 
the  time  in  which  there  were  so  many  emancipations,  and  such  a 
prospect  of  a  general  jubilee  for  soul  and  body.  Opposition  to 
Slavery  never  hurts  religion. 

EMANCIPATIONS. — And  thus  it  was  that  while  the  early  preachers 
were  laboring  assiduously  for  the  conversion  of  the  slaves,  they  were 
equally  active  for  their  temporal  emancipation.  And  the  one  in  no 
way  interfered  with  the  other.  So  far  from  it,  they  mutually  facili 
tated  each  other.  Perhaps  in  no  period  were  there  even  so  many 
of  the  whites,  and  those  too  of  wealth  and  intelligence,  added  to  the 
church,  as  at  the  very  time  in  which  there  was  so  much  said  and 
done  in  reference  to  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves.  And  while  the 
Carolinas  and  the  extreme  South  were  excluding  the  Methodist 
preachers,  burning  and  insulting  their  addresses,  it  was  far  different 
in  the  Northern  sections  of  the  slaveholding  states,  particularly  in 
Maryland  and  Delaware.  The  agitation  of  the  subject  in  these 
parts  was  producing  the  most  gratifying  results.  There  were  new 
and  frequent  openings  in  which  to  preach  the  gospel.  Religion 
generally  revived,  and  very  many  were  letting  the  oppressed  go 
free  ;  so  that  while  they  were  excluded  by  the  selfish,  they  were  re 
ceived  and  strengthened  by  those  who  loved  truth  and  justice. 

There  was  also  about  this  time  a  general  inquiry  awakened  con 
cerning  the  religious  and  political  bearing  of  Slavery,  and  very 
many  were  convinced  of  its  unrighteousness,  and  at  once  freed  their 
slaves.  Under  one  sermon  as  we  have  seen,  twenty-three  slaves 
were  known  to  have  been  set  free.  Bishop  Asbury  records  in 
Annarnessex,  Maryland,  in  17S8,  "That  most  of  our  members  in 
these  parts  have  freed  their  slaves" 

There  are  a  few  yet  remaining  at  the  South,  who  well  remember 
the  sacrifices  which  they  or  their  fathers  had  made  to  the  demands 
of  justice,  and  to  gain  or  retain  a  standing  in  the  Methodist  Epis 
copal  Church.  Emancipations  must  have  been  very  considerable, 
and  mostly  through  the  means  of  our  Church,  (as  at  that  lime,  we 


Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery.  75 

do  not  learn,  that  there  was  much  effort  from  any  other  quarter), 
for  according  to  the  census  of  1790,  there  were  in  Maryland  alone 
8.043  free  colored  persons,  besides  the  many  who  had  removed  out 
of  the  state. 

The  following  statistics  of  the  state  of  Maryland  will  communicate 
much  information  to  those  who  will  study  it,  in  connection  with  the 
labors  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  extirpate  Slavery. 


Tears. 

Slaves. 

Inc.  &  Dec. 
Per  Cent. 

Free  Col. 

Incraase  per  Cent. 

1790 
1800 
1810 
1820 

103,036 
105,638 
111,562 

107,398 

4.5 
3.5 

4.0  dec. 

8,043 
19,538 
33,027 
37,730 

143.5 

68.6 
14.0 

By  the  above  table  it  will  be  seen  that  the  largest  increase  of  the 
free  colored  people  was  in  those  years  in  which  the  Methodist 
Church  was  putting  forth  the  most  vigorous  efforts  to  extirpate  Sla 
very,  and  that  emancipations  lessened  just  in  proportion  as  they 
abated  these  exertions.  Between  1790  and  1800  the  increase  of  the 
free  colored  people  was  143.5  per  cent.  In  the  next  decennial  cen 
sus,  1810,  it  had  fallen  to  68,  more  than  one  half;  and  in  1820,  when 
the  colonization  doctrines  had  begun  to  affect,  the  community,  it 
went  down  to  14  per  cent,  being  less  than  the  natural  increase. 
And  further,  when  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  refrained  from  op 
posing  Slavery,  emancipation  ceased,  the  domestic  slave  trade  re 
vived,  and  that  very  Maryland  that  had  formerly  emancipated  so 
many  thousands,  between  the  years  of  1830  and  1840,  sold  40,000 
of  her  own  native  children,  at  the  price  of  15,000,000  dollars,  into 
interminable  Slavery,  and  soon  after  became,  I  believe,  bankrupt, 
or  nearly  so. 

What  insanity  was  this  for  a  state  to  sell  off  her  laborers,  the  only 
class  who  really  made  the  property!  And  what  an  inestimable 
blessing  it  would  have  been  to  that  fine  state  of  Maryland,  if  the 
second  generation  of  Methodist  preachers  had  never  receded  from 
the  position  of  their  fathers.  If,  instead  of  receding,  they  had  fol 
lowed  up  the  emancipations  which  the  latter  had  so  happily  begun, 
in  a  few  decades  that  state  would  have  become  free ;  and  from  her 
central  position,  fine  soil,  delightful  climate,  splendid  bays  and  ca 
pacious  harbors,  she  would  soon  have  become  one  of  the  first  states 
in  the  Union.  But  that  favorable  season  was  lost.  Our  Church 
lost  the  honor  of  a  great  moral  achievement,  and  the  state  generally 
the  advantages  arising  from  free  labor,  free  speech,  and  a  full  and 
a  free  gospel. 

But  in  admitting  the  slaves  and  colored  people  to  all  the  blessings 
and  immunities  of  the  Christian  Church,  the  preachers  soon  found 
themselves  in  close  collision  with  the  unscriptural  usages  and  the 
unrighteous  laws  of  the  State.  And  further,  they  found  that  the 
demands  of  Slavery  were  pressing  upon  the  rules  of  the  Church, 


76  Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery. 

and  that  there  was  unhappily  a  disposition  in  some  of  the  more 
wealthy  to  make  the  discipline  quadrate  with  Slavery.  To  check 
this  tendency,  and  maintain  the  purity  of  the  Church,  the  Conference 
of  1787  put  forth  the  following  solemn  injunction  in  reference  to  the 
colored  people : 

"  We  conjure  all  our  ministers  and  preachers,  by  the  love  of  God 
and  the  salvation  of  souls,  and  do  require  them,  ~by  all  the  authority 
that  is  invested  in  us,  to  leave  nothing  undone  for  the  spiritual 
benefit  and  salvation  of  them  within  their  respective  circuits  or  dis 
tricts  /  and  for  this  purpose  to  embrace  every  opportunity  of  inquir 
ing  into  the  state  of  their  souls,  and  to  unite  into  society  those  who 
appear  to  have  a  real  desire  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  to 
meet  such  in  class,  and  to  exercise  the  whole  Methodist  discipline 
among  them" 

No'w,  why  the  necessity  of  this  most  solemn  injunction,  particu 
larly  in  reference  to  the  colored  people?  We  conjure  you  by  the 
love  of  God — by  all  the  authority  vested  in  us— to  exercise  among 
the  colored  people  the  whole  Methodist  discipline.  The  mystery  of 
iniquity  was  now  beginning  to  work ;  that  fell  evil  which  has  brought 
Caste  and  Slavery  into  our  Church,  and  is  continually  sending  its 
blighting  and  disturbing  influence  over  our  beloved  Zion.  Our 
fathers  had  their  apprehensions ;  but  O,  how  fully  have  their'  fears 
been  realized  in  subsequent  concessions !  The  whole  Methodist  dis 
cipline  has  not  been  exercised  in  reference  to  the  slaves.  Had  it 
been,  it  would  have  extirpated  Slavery  long  since,  The  moral  dis 
cipline  of  Christianity  destroyed  Slavery  in  the  Roman  Empire,  and 
it  would  have  done  the  same  for  our  country  if  the  ministers  of  the 
gospel  had  only  enforced  it.  We  want  no  better  abolition  book  than 
the  Bible,  and  no  better  "  plan  for  emancipation  "  than  simply  that 
of  the  Christian  discipline.  Let  these  be  fully  recognized  and  ap 
plied,  and  Slavery  would  necessarily  die,  without  the  possibility  of 
a  resurrection.  And  farther,  the  continued  observance  of  these 
would  always  keep  Slavery  out  of  the  Church. 

THE  CONTRAST. — Condition  of  Slaves  in  the  Present  and  Primi 
tive  Churches  contrasted. — We  purpose  to  show  the  great  difference 
between  the  primitive  churches  and  those  in  our  own  country,  in 
reference  to  their  respective  administrations  of  Christian  discipline 
among  slaves.  And  in  the  showing,  we  think  every  one  must  see 
at  once  how  widely  the  latter  has  departed  from  the  former ;  and 
consequently  from  the  Scriptures.  And  they  will  further  see,  the 
utter  impossibility  of  abolishing  Slavery  while  the  present  ecclesias 
tical  administration  shall  continue  as  it  is.  Before  the  peaceful 
removal  of  Slavery,  there  must  be  a  return  to  the  primitive  and 
scriptural  mode  of  administration  in  regard  to  slaves. 

The  primitive  Church  recognized  the  converted  slaves  as  full 
and  acceptable  members  of  the  body  of  Christ.  Whatever  their 
civil  or  social  condition  might  have  been  among  the  heathens,  when 
they  came  into  the  Christian  Church  they  came  in  just  as  other  con- 


Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery.  77 

verts,  and  like  them  were  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  immunities 
of  the  new  relation.  They  were  "  one  in  Christ :  where  there  was 
neither  Greek,  nor  Jew,  Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  or  free ;  but 
Christ  was  all,  and  in  all."  There  is  not  the  least  intimation  in  the 
New  Testament,  or  during  the  first  two  centuries,  that  there  was  any 
difference  ecclesiastically,  by  special  rule  or  administration,  between 
the  bond  or  the  free  members  of  the  Church. 

To  tho'se  who  were  under  the  yoke  in  Slavery  to  heathen  masters, 
the  Apostle  and  the  Church  enjoined  obedience.  Not  that  the  mas 
ter  had  any  right  to  this  service,  but  for  another  reason  ;  a  reason, 
in  passing,  which  was  wholly  inapplicable  to  Christian  masters, 
viz. :  "  that  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed." 
In  a  word,  that  the  Christian  slave  should  act  to  his  heathen  master 
on  the  principle  of  doing  good  for  evil — on  the  same  principle  of 
"  turning  the  other  cheek,"  which  our  Saviour  had  enjoined.  That 
in  this  way  he  might  give  to  his  heathen  master  such  a  splendid  ex 
hibition  of  Christian  morality,  contrasting  generosity  on  the  one  hand 
with  covetousness  on  the  other,  that  the  master's  opposition  to  Chris 
tianity  might  be  broken  down,  so  that  he  might  not  only  embrace 
the  truth,  but  that  he  might  ultimately  give  the  slave  his 'liberty. 

But,  on  the  contrary,  the  directions  given  to  those  who  had  "  be 
lieving  masters,"  were  altogether  of  a  different  character.  They 
could  not  have  been  enjoined  upon  the  above  principle,  for  the  mas 
ters  were  already  Christians,  and  they  did  not  need  this  reflective 
influence  to  make  them  such.  And  further,  as  we  shall  show,  the 
directions  given  were  really  such  as  were  wholly  inconsistent  for  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave.  Thus, 

The  servants  in  the  Apostolic  Church  were  not  "  to  despise " 
their  former  master — not  to  think  ill  of  them  on  account  of  anything 
which  had  taken  place  in  their  heathen  state.  The  past  was  to  have 
been  forgiven  and  forgotten.  "  Old  things  now  were  to  be  done 
away,  and  all  things  to^become  new." 

u  But  rather  do  them  serviced — rather  serve  them  still,  than  to 
work  for  others,  perhaps  heathen  masters.  Here  there  is  certainly  a 
choice,  or  a  preference  between  employers.  The  choice  is  obvious 
in  our  version,  but  still  more  so  in  the  original  [aXXa  jxaXXov].  Web 
ster  defines  rather,  " in  preference"  Now  this'  would  have  been 
tantalizing,  to  have  told  the  Christian  servant  to  do  service,  rather 
in  preference  to  his  former  master  since  he  had  now  become  a 
Christian,  if  the  former  were  yet  really  a  slave  and  consequently 
had  not  the  least  choice  in  the  matter.  But  on  the  contrary,  the 
apostle  went  on  so  far  as  to  reason  with  those  who  had  believing 
masters,  in  reference  to  their  staying  with  them,  since  they  had  now 
become  Christians. 

Because  they  are  brethren,  "beloved"  and  they  belonged  to 
the  same  household  of  faith  with  themselves,  and  are  equally  be 
loved  by  the  same  common  Saviour. 

"Because  they  are  faithful"  and  they  will  consequently  do 
an  honest  part  towards  them,  which  perhaps  heathen  employers 


78  Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery. 

might  not  do,  in  giving  them  full  fair  wages  for  their  work.     And 
finally, — 

They  are  <k partakers  of  the  benefit"  joint  partakers.  Schre- 
velius  renders  the  original  word  "  to  receive  in  turn,  as  a  kindness ; 
to  assist.  Parkhurst  translates  it  "  to  take  hold  on  the  opposite  side.77 
And  Piscator  says  the  word  denotes  properly  a  bundle  or  a  burden, 
through  which  a  stick  in  passed,  and  each  one  on  the  opposite  side 
takes  hold  of  the  ends  of  if,  and  thus  they  mutually  benefited  each 
other.  Now  this  view  would  not  at  all  suit  the  respective  parties  in 
a  state  of  Slavery.  For  in  this  case  the  burden  would  have  been 
all  on  the  one  side,  and  the  slave  would  have  had  to  work  for 
another,  without  getting  anything  more  for  it  than  the  horse  gets, 
which  is  simply  enough  to  keep  him  in  working  order. 

Nearly  the  whole  of  the  above  may  be  deemed  a  digression,  but 
it  should  be  remembered  that  this  verse,  I.  Tim.  vi.  2,  is  regarded 
as  the  main  pillar  on  which  Slavery  rests  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  was  upon  the  words  "believing  masters,"  that  Dr.  Wilbur  Fisk 
spread  out  his  celebrated  "  demonstration,"  that  there  were  slave 
holders  in  the  Apostolic  Church ;  a  demonstration,  or  imaginary  one, 
as  we  humbly  think,  which  was  soon  endorsed  by  nearly  all  our 
chief  ministers,  and  which  certainly,  without  the  intention  of  the 
learned  and  excellent  Doctor,  has  done  perhaps  more  to  rivet  Sla 
very  in  our  Church  and  in  our  country,  than  the  direct  arguments 
of  any  other  man  living  or  deceased.  It  was  actually  received  by 
millions  as  oracular.  Arguments  against  it  were  deemed  unworthy 
of  notice.  Locke  has  truly  said  "  that  authority  keeps  in  ignorance 
and  error  more  people  than  all  other  causes."  But  to  return — 

.  So  also  when  the  master  who  had  been  recently  converted  from 
heathenism,  presented  himself  for  admission  into  the  Apostolic 
Church,  he  was  required  to  "  give  unto  his  servants  that  which  is 
just  and  equal."  From  this  there  could  have  been  no  departure  in 
the  Apostolic  Church.  The  first  word  just,  is  a  legal  term,  and 
must  refer  to  some  law,  rule  or  usage.  When  we  say  a  thing  is  just, 
we  immediately  compare  it  in  our  minds  with  some  standard.  Now 
what  was  the  standard  to  which  the  apostle  must  have  referred  ? 

It  could  not  have  referred  to  any  slave  code  specifically  re 
vealed  from  heaven  for  the  government  of  slaves,  as  a  distinct 
class,  from  free  men.  Because  no  such  specific  code  can  be  found 
in  the  bible.  The  precepts  of  the  New  Testament  are  given  to  the 
whole  race,  without  granting  anything  to  any  one  class  in  particular. 
And  further,  they  are  all  founded  on  the  principles  of  substantial 
equity  to  every  individual. 

It  could  not  have  referred  to  any  law  or  rule  among  the  heathen 
Romans,  for  the  slave  was  in  their  hands  without  law,  and  by 
custom  their  masters  might  torture,  starve,  and  even  kill  them  to 
fatten  the  fish  in  their  ponds.  And  further,  any  reference  to  such 
usages  would  prove  too  much.  It  would  prove  1.  That  the  gospel 
sanctioned  the  above  Koman  system,  with  all  its  atrocities  and  mur- 


Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery.  Y9 

ders.     2.  That  it  allowed  their  continuance.     3.  That  they  were  the 
pattern  after  which  succeeding  Christians  were  to  copy. 

Now  in  the  absence  of  all  such  suppositions,  we  believe  that 
"just"  has  a  reference  in  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  to  the  common 
law  of  heaven,  to  keep  judgment  and  do  justice,  for  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons  ;  and  that  this,  the  eternal  and  the  all-pervading 
law  of  God  was  then  to  be  applied  to  the  slave  as  to  any  other  per 
son  :  and  that  it  is  just  as  applicable  at  this  moment  to  every 
slave  in  the  rice  swamps  or  on  the  cotton  fields  of  the  South,  as  it 
is  applicable  to  any  other  human  being  in  God's  creation.  And 
what  an  impious  assumption,  to  say  that  this  standing  law  of  God 
does  not  apply  to  slaves !  But  if  you  apply  it  to  slaves,  as  the 
primitive  Christians  did,  you  necessarily  make  them  free.  You 
cannot  avoid  the  consequence.  And  this  application  of  God's  law 
to  the  slave  is  the  plan  of  the  gospel  for  his  immediate  emancipation. 
And  it  was  just  in  this  light  that  the  Southern  Methodists,  in  our 
last  general  conference,  viewed  the  application  of  this  law,  "the 
giving  that  which  was  just  and  equal;"  "for  the  doing  of  this,"  they 
said  "would  make  free  men  of  them." 

Their  eloquent  leader  objected  to  the  proposed  rule,  which,  he 
says,  "  provides  for  giving  them  [the  slaves]  such  compensation  as 
shall  be  just  and  equal,"  and  for  their  proper  treatment.  That 
makes  a  new  test,  and  why  ?  It  changes  entirely  the  relation  of 
master  and  slave.  "  It  makes  the  slave  a  free  man,"  he  affirmed. 
So  it  would,  and  so  it  did  in  the  primitive  Church.  And  so  God 
designed  that  it  should  in  every  church,  and  in  every  age  and 
country.  And  thus,  the  requisition  of  the  aposMe  upon  every  mas 
ter  when  becoming  a  Christian,  to  give  what  was  just  and  equal, 
was,  according  to  Southern  showing,  the  very  thing  that  made  the 
slave  a  free  man.  And  what  an  effective  and  beautiful  plan  of 
emancipation  was  this  !  It  was  God's  plan,  and  we  need  no  other. 

The  second  requirement  of  the  master  for  admission  was  to 
give  the  slave  that  -which  was  equal.  This,  like  the  other  word 
just,  refers  not  to  what  heathens  gave,  or  to  any  supposed  inferior 
class,  but  on  the  contrary,  it  referred  to  the  masters  themselves,  and 
to  the  great  law  of  reciprocity.  That  the  converted  master  (know 
ing  that  God  was  no  respecter  of  persons ;  that  the  slave  was  or 
might  be  his  brother)  was  therefore  not  to  take  any  advantage 
which  the  civil  law  might  allow  him  over  another ;  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  he  should  concede  to  his  former  slave  an  equal  right  with 
himself,  to  use  those  talents  which  God  had  given  the  slave  for  his 
own,  and  not  for  his  master's  peculiar  benefit."  And  this  again  would 
a  free  man  of  him.  So  it  would,  and  so  it  was  intended. 

The  third  item  in  the  master's  duty.  "And  ye  masters  do  the 
same  things  unto  them"  These  words  must  refer  more  to  the  cha 
racter  of  the  action  than  to  any  particular  item  in  it.  That  is,  the 
actions  of  the  master  and  servant  were  both  to  partake  equally  of 
the  same  moral  qualities.  The  servant  was  to  act  "  in  singleness  of 
heart."  So  the  master,  having  no  sinister  motives  in  his  conduct 

O 


80  Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery. 

towards  the  servant,  having  no  selfish  regard  to  his  own  profit  or 
pleasure  above  that  of  the  servant,  much  less  to  secure  the  former 
at  the  entire  destruction  of  the  latter. 

The  servant  was  to  do  the  will  of  God  in  reference  to  the  mas 
ter,  from  the  heart,  fully,  liberally.  So  also  the  master  to  the  ser 
vant,  doing  the  will  of  God  in  the  same  manner  to  the  slave  heart 
ily  and  fully.  The  will  of  God  most  evidently  is,  that  every  one 
should  have  an  opportunity  of  cultivating  and  elevating  his  moral 
nature ;  that  he  should  have  the  liberty  of  improving  those  tal 
ents  which  God  had  given  him,  in  that  way  in  wrhich  he  who  is  ac 
countable  for  them  should  think  the  best.  But  what  master  can  be 
said  to  do  the  will  of  God  in  the  above  manner,  while  he  keeps  his 
fellow-creature  a  prisoner  for  life,  for  every  slave  is  a  prisoner  ;  while 
he  takes  from  him  all  his  earnings ;  and  while  he  debars  him  from 
the  means  by  which  he  might  become  enlightened  and  intelligent? 

The  fourth  and  last  item  in  the  master's  duty  ;  "forbear  threat 
ening"  Threatening  is  the  setting  forth  of  pains  and  penalties  to 
intimidate,  as  a  means  to  force  one  to  do  something.  There  are  two 
elements  in  government :  one  operates  on  its  subjects  by  fear,  and 
it  has  not  been  improperly  called  "brute  government ;  the  other 
by  an  appeal  -to  the  consciousness  of  right  and  wrong,  and  it  is  called 
rational  government.  Jn  every  species  of  slave  government  there 
must  be  an  appeal  to 'fear,  which  fear  can  only  be  sustained  by 
threatening  and  its  consequent  punishment — the  very  thing  which 
is  forbidden  to  the  master.  We  do  not  say  that  the  master  is  always 
threatening,  but  we  do  say  that  punishment  on  disobedience  is  al 
ways  understood,  without  which  there  could  be  no  Slavery. 

God  has  implanted  in  our  nature  an  appropriate  incentive  to ' 
work,  which  is,  the  fruits  of  our  labor ;  but  when  this  is  taken  away, 
and  Slavery  always  takes  it  away,  then  there  must  be  some  other 
incentive  applied,  which  is  the  very  thing  the  Apostle  forbids.  It 
is  madness,  fanaticism,  to  imagine  that  we  can  change  the  laws  of 
mind,  or  invert  the  laws  of  God.  God  has  given  to  every  man,  of 
whatever  nation,  color  or  condition,  an  instinctive  desire  to  direct 
himself,  to  enjoy  his  liberty,  and  to  have  his  own  earnings ;  and  no 
system  of  man  call  ever  change  this  constitution  of  our  being. 

Now,  we  think,  in  analysing  these  parts  of  the  master's  duty,  that 
we  have  established  the  position,  that  the  duties  which  the  Apostolic 
Church  required  from  all  masters  are  such,  that  if  they  were  car 
ried  out,  they  must  necessarily  make  every  slave  in  the  world  a 
free  man.  And  then,  consequently,  that  the  astounding  fact,  that 
there  are  in  our  country  nearly  two  millions  slaves  yet  held  by  the 
professed  members  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  in  itself  an  alarming 
evidence  that  the  true  Christian  discipline,  in  reference  to  slaves, 
has  never  yet  been  carried  out  in  those  churches.  They  must  be 
criminally  negligent  before  God  and  in  the  estimation  of  Christen 
dom.  We  have  dwelt  for  some  time  on  the  nature  of  Apostolic 
discipline,  from  a  conviction  of  its  importance.  The  simple  appli 
cation  of  the  principles  of  Christianity  to  church  membership,  is 


Success  of  First  Efforts  to  'Extirpate  Slavery.  81 

the  gospel  plan  for  emancipation,  and  like  all  God's  works,  it  is  at 
once  effective,  beautiful,  and  harmonious  in  all  its  operations. 

We  now  return  to  the  contrast,  and  present  some  other  views  in 
this  matter.  When  the  slave  comes  into  the  Church  at  the  South, 
and  on  our  slaveholding  border,  he  comes  in  as  a  slave.  And  he 
brings  with  him  into  this  new  relation,  all  the  disabilities,  or  more 
properly,  the  entire  state  of  chattelship  which  the  secular  law  has 
fastened  upon  him.  And  so  the  master,  when  he  comes  into  the 
Church,  comes  as  a  slaveholder,  and  he  brings  with  him  into  it  all 
the  unscriptural  powers  and  assumptions,  which  the  slave  laws  have 
conferred  upon  him.  And  now  the  respective  parties  are  not  brought 
together  under  the  same  gospel  discipline,  as  the  apologists  for  the 
present  continuation  of  Slavery  appear  to  claim,  that  is,  under  "the 
one  law  for  the  home-born  and  the  stranger,"  or  under  the  great  law 
of  reciprocity  of  the  New  Testament ;  but  they  are  recognized  in 
the  Church  as  under  a  wholly  different  code.  The  usages,  the  non- 
scriptce  leges  of  Slavery,  which  these  churches  have  already  adopted, 
baptized,  and  virtually  recognized  as  their  ecclesiastical  law  in  this 
matter,  place  the  parties  in  very  dissimilar  relations.  The  one  pos 
sessed  of  unbounded  right  over  the  other.  And  the  other  possess 
ing  no  right  whatever,  receiving  whatever  he  may  receive  from  the 
Church  or  his  master  as  a  mere  gratuity.  And  thus,  these  usages, 
by  the.  means  of  this  double  administration,  has  really,  in  reference 
to  the  slave,  all  the  force  of  written  and  positive  law. 
.  Perhaps  no  Southern  church  has  had  the  effrontery  to  write  out 
a  slaveholding  discipline  in  form  ;  but  all  slaveholding  churches,  both 
on  our  border  and  everywhere  else,  must  have  such  a  one  in  fact ; 
that  is,  they  have  such  a  one  through  their  two-fold  administration, 
one  according  to  the  written,  and  the  other  according  to  the  un 
written  discipline ;  or  in  other  words,  one  for  the  master  and  one 
for  the  slave,  or  otherwise  Slavery  could  not  exist  in  the  Church  for 
a  single  day. 

Now,  all  such  churches,  and  ours  with  them,  may  have  ten 
thousand  "  testimonies  against  Slavery  "  on  the  statute  book,  or  in 
the  discipline ;  but  while  they  adopt  slave  usages,  and  administer  the 
affairs  of  the  Church  by  them,  such  testimony  might  just  as  well  be 
in  the  Koran  as  where  they  are.  And  such  churches  really  give 
to  Slavery  the  best  authentication  of  which  they  are  able— a  far 
far  better  one  than  mere  statutory  law.  The  one  ist  only  in  the 
book,  or  discipline  ;  but  the  other  is  an  open  sanction,  and  a  visible, 
demonstrable  acknowledgment  of  the  legal  existence  of  Slavery  in 
the  Church  by  action,  which  can  be  easily  seen  and  known  of  all 
men.  And  thus,  this  open  saction  of  the  legality  of  Slavery  in  the 
Church,  is  much  stronger  than  any  verbal  declaration  can  be  against 
it,  inasmuch  as  actions  are  always  stronger  and  more  convincing 
than  mere  words. 

Thus,  according  to  these  unwritten  laws,  or- slave  usages — 

The  slave  member  has  no  ecclesiastical  rights.  He  has  no  right 
of  suit  against  his  master,  or  any  free  man.  His  master  may 


82  Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery. 

beat  him,  wrest  from  him  all  his  earnings,  and  do  what  else  he 
pleases  with  impunity.  And  if,  according  to  our  Saviour's  rule, 
(Matt,  xviii.  18-15),  he  were  to  expostulate  with  him  about  his 
wrongs,  he  might  get  a  flogging  for  doing  so.  If  he  were  to  take 
another  slave  brother  with  him,  they  both  might  get  the  same ;  and 
if  he  were  to  tell  it  to  the  Church,  the  slave  usages,  or  the  double 
administration,  now  steps  in,  and  the  Church  is  not  obliged  to  hear 
him,  or  to  receive  his  testimony.  This  was  not  so  in  the  Primitive 
Church,  and  this  is  an  awful  stumbling  block  to  every  slave  wanting 
to  be  a  Christian. 

He  has  no  right  of  testimony.  His  wife  or  daughters  may  be 
abused  by  any  white  ruffian,  or  he  may  be  cognizant  to  the  grossest 
wickedness  among  the  members  in  the  church  where  he  has  his 
quasi  membership  ;  but  the  church  will  not  receive  his  word.  He 
is  nullus,  nobody.  And  so  the  iniquity  must  run  on  ;  for  the  Church 
will  not  receive  the  means  which  God  has  ordained  to  keep  herself 
pure. 

The  Primitive  Church  had  lut  one  law  for  marriage.  Not  so, 
the  slaveholding  churches,  which  in  effect  have  two.  The  Christian 
law  for  the  free,  and  the  slave  usage  for  the  slaves,  whether  they 
are  white  or  black — for  some  slaves  are  as  white  as  their  masters. 
Hence,  the  slave  has  no  legal  or  ecclesiastical  recognition  of  his  mar 
riage.  Most  of  them  "  take  up  together,"  while  they  live  in  the 
same  place.  Those  who  wish  to  be  Christians  have  a  quasi  mar 
riage,  by  a  slave  preacher,  or  a  white  minister,  changing,  I  am  told, 
the  word  in  the  discipline,  "  while  you  both  shall  live^"  into,  "  till 
the  providence  of  God  do  you  part."  •  And  this  providence  is  the 
mere  will,  profit,  or  pleasure  of  the  master.  And  thus  many  in  this 
way  may  have  a  dozen  or  more  whom  they  have  recognized  as 
husbands  and  wives,  in  the  many  places  in  which  they  have  lived. 

The^ApostoLic  Church  recognized  the  slave's  individual  respon 
sibility,  and  his  direct  accountability  to  God.  But  slaveholding 
churches,  in  some  anomalous  way,  attempt  to  merge  both  these  into 
the  keeping  of  the  master.  And  casuistically  they  say,  as  the  slave 
has  no  freedom  of  action,  but  is  bound  unlimitedly  to  obey  his  mas 
ter,  therefore,  in  obeying  his  master  he  can  do  no  wrong.  So  the 
master  is  the  higher  law  to  the  slave.  They  might  as  well  Jay  the 
blame  of  every  sin  upon  the  Devil,  because  he  tempts  to  its  com 
mission,  and  in  this  way  they  would  exonerate  not  only  the  slave, 
but  every  sinner  on  earth. 

Now  the  truth  in  this  matter  is,  God  holds  every  man,  slaves  and 
all  others,  directly  and  immediately  accountable  to  himself.  There 
can  be  no  tranfer  of  responsibility  from  the  slave  to  the  master. 
The  Church,  as  in  primitive  times,  should  have  taught  the  slave  to 
obey  God  at  all  events.  He  should  have  been  taught  the  first  prin 
ciples  of  Christianity,  to  ''  obey  God  rather  than  man. — To  fear  not 
them  that  kill  the  body,  but  to  fear  Him  who  hath  power  to  cast 
soul  and  body  into  hell."  But  slaves  are  never  taught  this  first  prin 
ciple  of  our  religion.  When  the  slaves  unite  with  the  Church,  as 


Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery.  83 

• 

they  did  in  primitive  times,  they  should  be  required  to  keep  the 
Sabbath,  attend  public  worship,  and  perform  other  religious  duties, 
whether  their  masters  allowed  it  or  not.  That  Christian  women,  as 
in  the  Apostolic  Church,  should  keep  themselves  pure;  to  resist,  if 
need  be,  even  unto  death,  their  licentious  masters,  and  other  white 
ruffians.  And  so  in  regard  to  all  other  sins.  But  these  duties  are 
not  taught  the  slaves  of  our  country,  and  sever  can  be  without  com 
ing  in  deadly  collision  with  Slavery  itself. 

Now  it  is  obvious  that  such  a  position,  to  obey  the  command 
ments  of  God  rather  than  those  of  men,  would  be  in  itself  the  very 
germ  of  enfranchisement,  and  it  would  be  high  treason  against  the 
supreme  divinity  of  slavery;  it  would  be  a  fatal  blow  at  the  very 
root  of  this  upas  of  oppression.  But  would  the  slaveholder  brook 
it  ?  AYould  he  approve  of  a  Christianity  like  this  ?  Such  a  Christ 
ianity  as  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  taught  ?  Never  !  for  he  well 
knows  that  such  doctrines  would  sever  the  chain  that  binds  the  hu 
man  chattel  to  himself,  and  that  the  recognition  of  any  power  supe 
rior  to  his  own,  would  immediately  annihilate  all  his  own  impious 
assumptions.  And  in  such  case  we  would  not  have  it  announced 
in  the  Missionary  Report,  "  that  the  Christian  ministers  and  mis 
sionaries  still  retain  the  approbation  and  confidence  of.  the  planters  " 
or  slaveholders. 

But  the  slaves  are  not  thus  taught  in  slaveholding  churches,  nor 
anything  like  it.  Practically  and  really,  the  master's  will  is  the 
higher  law  to  the  slave.  And  consequently,  nearly  every  one  of 
them,  Christians  and  all  others,  must  succumb  to  almost  every  sin 
at  the  bidding  of  their  masters;  and  the  Church  also  succumbs  with 
them,  whenever  God's  law  comes  in  collision  with  the  supreme  law 
of  the  master;  then  it  is  that  God's  law  is  set  aside  to  accommodate 
his.  And  what  kind  of  Christianity  ca*n  that  be  in  which  there  is 
so  often  no  Sabbath,  no  marriage,  no  resistance  to  any  sin  at  the 
biddings  of  the  ungodly  slaveholder  ?  A  Christianity  in  which  the 
Bible  is  overthrown,  and  the  master's  will  reigning  supreme  ?  Is 
that  Christianity  ? 

Thus  we  have  endeavored  to  contrast  the  administration  of 
Christian  discipline  in  the  primitive  Church  with  that  of  our  own. 
Our  fathers,  in  suspending  for  a  while  the  prohibitory  rule  on  Sla 
very,  no  doubt  thought,  with  many  others,  that  the  gospel  which 
had  been  preached  would  soon  leaven  the  nation,  and  so  influence 
the  master  and  slave  that  this  enormous  evil  would  entirely  cease. 
But  here  was  the  error  into  which  they  fell,  and  into  which  thou 
sands  have  since  fallen.  Most  persons  seem  to  take  for  granted 
what  is  not  the  case.  They  suppose  that  in  slaveholding  countries 
the  whole  gospel  is  preached,  and  that  the  moral  discipline  of  the 
New  Testament  is  duly  administered.  But  this  is  not  the  fact,  and 
never  can  be,  by  a  Church  and  ministry  who  allow  the  continuance 
of  Slavery  among  them.  There  can  be  no  better  plan  for  the  im 
mediate  abolition  of  Slavery  than  the  carrying  out  of  Christian  dis 
cipline. 


84:  Success  of  First  Efforts  to  Extirpate  Slavery. 

0 

Now  there  is  but  one  outline  of  moral  discipline  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  this  is  to  apply  substantially  to  the 
whole  household  of  faith,  for  in  it  they  are  all  recognized  as 
brethren.  If,  then,  this  one  rule  or  discipline  were  to  be  exercised 
in  reference  to  master  and  slave  immediately  on  their  entrance  into 
the  Christian  Church,  Slavery  could  not  survive  the  administration 
one  hour.  But  as  we  have  already  shown,  to  accommodate  Slavery 
there  are  in  effect  two:  one  for  the  privileged  order,  and  another  for 
the  unprivileged,  or  rather  no  privileged,  class  of  those  whom  they  call 
church  members.  And  it  is  not  a  little  surprising  that  those  who 
suppose  the  New  Testament  recognizes  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave,  should  have  forgotten  to  hunt  up  a  corresponding  discipline 
to  sustain  such  a  relation,  for  without  such  a  Church  discipline  the 
relation  must  necessarily  cease.  The  one  administration  would 
kill  it. 

This  double  manner  of  administering  Christian  discipline  will 
will  never  abolish  Slavery  to  the  end  of  time';  so  far  from  it,  it  be 
comes,  in  fact,  the  bulwark  and  support  of  it;  it  gives  a  full  and 
well-understood  ecclesiastical  sanction  and  recognition  to  the  whole 
system.  And  further,  it  is  a  solemn  and  awful  truth,  that  this  kind 
of  Christianity,  coming  to  the  slave  through  this  loathsome  system, 
presented  and  administered  by  slaveholding  ministers,  and  those 
who  countenance  Slavery,  makes  millions  of  these  poor  creatures 
"  abhor  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord,"  and  think  that  the  whole  of  reli 
gion  is  a  cunningly  devised  fable  between  the  minister  and  his  mas 
ter  to  keep  him  in  bondage  to  work  for  both  of  them.  This  is  a 
startling  consideration,  and  not  half  sufficiently  thought  of  by  the 
churches  in  our  country.  We  never  can  know  the  real  sentiments 
of  the  slave  in  regard  to  Christianity,  until  we  allow  him  freely  to 
express  his  own  views.  "We 'ere  continually  hearing  but  one  side 
of  the  whole  matter. 

In  conclusion,  we  are  fully  persuaded  that  Church  privileges 
would  have  removed  this  curse  from  our  land  if  the  ministers  of  the 
gospel  had  only  admitted  the  slaves  to  them.  But  they  have  not ; 
Christian  institutions  have  been  set  aside  to  accommodate  those  of 
Slavery.  O,  how  lamentable,  to  see  ministers  of  the  gospel  strike 
the  banners  of  the  cross,  which  ought  to  float  fearlessly  and  tri 
umphantly  over  every  system,  and  to  see  them  basely  retreat  before 
the  foul  fury  of  Slavery,  or  surrender  to  its  impious  assumptions  the 
institutions  of  heaven,  the  Sabbath,  marriage,  ,and  nearly  every 
Church  privilege!  Such  a  partial,  mutilated  administration  of 
Christian  discipline  vitiates  everything  within  its  reach.  And  such 
a  base  succumbing  to  Slavery  is  a  reproach  to  our  common  Christ 
ianity,  and  it  is  not  only  a  stumbling  block  to  millions  of  poor 
slaves,  in  reference  to  their  reception  of  the  gospel,  but  it  is  filling 
the  entire  South,  and  indeed  all  our  land,  with  infidelity. 


CHAPTER  XL 


FELLOWSHIP     WITH     SLAVEHOLDERS. 


THE  CHURCH  THE  EMBODIMENT  OF  CHRISTIANITY — Two  WAYS  TO  SUSTAIN  AN 
EVIL — THE  SCRIPTURAL  RULE — THE  COVETOUS — THE  RAILER — THE  EX 
TORTIONER — MORAL  HERESIES  —  NOTHING  COHESIVE  IN  SLAVERY — IT  CAN 
NOT  STAND  WITHOUT  OUTWARD  SUPPORT. 


THE  Church  should  be  the  visible  embodiment  of  Christianity ; 
her  members  should  be  the  light  of  the  world,  reflecting  that  which 
was  to  chase  away  the  world's  darkness ;  she  should  be  "  the  pattern 
of  the  heavenly,"  attracting  and  assimilating  the  whole  world  to 
herself.  Hence  it  was  that  the  apostles  were  so  careful  to  keep  the 
Church  pure  and  separate  from  sin  and  sinners. 

For  two  hundred  years  Slavery  has  taken  refuge  in  the  Bible; 
and  to  this  day  it  leans  upon  the  Church  of  God  as  its  main  support. 
There  is  nothing  cohesive  or  self-supporting  in  Slavery ;  it  is  an  un 
natural  state  of  society,  and  it  cannot  stand  of  itself.  Take  away 
the  extraneous  props  which  surround  it,  and  it  necessarily  falls  to 
pieces ;  and  consequently  every  one  should  examine  whether  he  is 
giving  any  support  to  it  or  not. 

There  are  two  ways  by  which  one -may  sustain  and  perpetuate 
an  evil.  By  either  directly  practicing  it  themselves,  or  indirectly, 
by  supporting  or  countenancing  those  who  do  practice  it ;  and  the 
latter,  in  many  cases,  can  really  give  the  more  efficient  and  abiding 
support  to  the  evil.  Thus  Jehoshaphat  sustained  Ahab,  and  Ahab 
sustained  idolatry.  The  axiom  is,  things  which  are  equal  to  one 
and  the  same  thing,  are  equal  to  each  other,  and  so  it  is  in  reference 
to  Slavery. 

Abolitionists,  however,  do  not  set  in  judgment  on  the  souls  of 
slaveholders.  They  can  tell,  according  to  God's  Word,  what  is  right 
or  wrong,  for  the  boundaries  of  these  are  fixed  in  the  Bible ;  but 
they  cannot  tell  the  amount  of  invincible  prejudice,  invincible 
ignorance,  or  many  other  causes  which  may  obstruct  the  moral  vision 
of  other  men.  To  their  own  Master  all  such  must  stand  or  fall. 

But  this  avowal  is  no  reason  why  they  should  fellowship  with  slave 
holders,  and  by  so  doing,  give  to  Slavery  its  most  efficient  support. 
They  regard  the  holding  and  the  using  of  a  fellow-being  in  the  con 
dition  of  a  slave  as  prima  facie  evidence  of  sin,  and  as  such,  they 
are  bound  in  conscience  to  bear  their  testimony  against  it,  and  to 
withdraw  their  support  from  it.  And  this  procedure  is  neither  new 


86  Fellowship  with  Slaveholders. 

nor  fanatical ;  it  is  as  old  and  as  orthodox  as  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church.  St.  Paul  says,  "If  any  man  that  is  called  a 
brother  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a 
drunkard,  or  extortioner;  with  such  an  one  not  to  eat." — 1  Cor. 
v.  xi.  Here  are  six  kind  of  persons  with  whom  the  Christian  Church 
should  have  no  fellowship,  and  of  whom  it  is  said,  in  the  next 
chapter,  that  such  "  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  And 
three  out  of  the  six  we  think  most  evidently  include  the  slaveholders. 

THE  COVETOUS. — The  lexicographers  say  the  original  word  means 
"to  have  more;"  and  Parkhuret,  more  than  one's  due,  or  share. 
Webster  defines  it  to  desire  inordinately,  in  a  had  sense,  Now 
the  slaveholder  not  only  desires,  but  actually  takes  the  fruits  of 
another's  labor  without  compensation,  and  appropriates  it  to  his  own 
exclusive  benefit.  In  the  text,  the  desire,  the  very  state  of  mind, 
is  condemned  ;  but  to  carry  out  that  state  of  mind,  and  to  continue 
in  it  must  certainly  be  worse ;  this  must  be  the  highest  grade  of 
covetousness.  If  it  is  wrong  to  covet  our  neighbor's  ox,  it  must 
certainly  be  worse  to  covet  the  neighbor  himself,  ox,  and  all  that  he 
hath.  NOWT,  I  defy  the  world  to  produce  a  greater  embodiment  of 
covetousness  than  that  which  is  concentrated  in  the  slaveholder,  who 
not  only  cherishes  this  forbidden  state  of  mind,  which  desires  that 
which  belongs  to  another,  but  who  actually  holds  and  uses  it,  and 
finally  takes  and  transmits  it  to  his  children  after  him.  Nothing 
can  go  beyond  this. 

THE  RAILER — "  Who  uses  reproachful  language"  Oat  of  the 
heart  the  mouth  speaketh,  and  such  speaking  shows  the  moral  turpi 
tude  of  the  heart.  Allow  Thomas  Jefferson  to  become  bibical  com 
mentator,  in  this  case.  "  The  whole  commerce,"  he  says,  "  between 
master  and  slave,  is  a  perpetual  exercise  of  the  most  boisterous  pas 
sions,  the  most  unremitting  despotisms  on  the  one  part,  and  degrad 
ing  submissions  on  the  other."  It  is  folly  to  deceive  ourselves ;  the 
element  in  slave  government  is  fear,  excited  and  kept  up  by  threat 
ening,  railing,  reproachful  language,  the  very  thing  which  is  forbid 
den  by  the  apostle :  and  if  these  are  not  successful,  they  are  followed 
by  pain  and  punishment. 

'THE  EXTORTIONER — "  Who  wrests  any  thing  from  a  person  ~by 
force,  duress,  or  authority? — Webster.  Thus  the  pseudo  Christian 
slaveholder  takes  the  advantage  of  an  iniquitous  law — a  law  in  vio 
lation  of  every  principle  of  justice,  as  recognized  by  civilized  or 
savage  men — and  extorts,  twists  out  from  the  slave,  as  the  word  im 
ports,  the  hard  earnings  of  a  poor  defenseless  man,  and  then  appro 
priates  them  to  his  own  exclusive  benefit.  Jacob  took  advantage  of 
the  starvation  of  his  brother,  and  extorted  from  him  his  birth-right; 
but  Esau  himself  was  spared,  and  he  bravely  recovered  himself. 
But  not  so  the  slaveholder ;  he  spares  nothing ;  he  makes  a  clean 
sweep  ;  he  plucks  down  "  the  image  of  God,"  converts  him  to  chattel- 
ship,  and  makes  him  a  mere  tool,  subsidiary  to  his  own  gratification. 
Is  not  this  extortion  ?  and  what  a  giant  extortion  is  that  of  the 
300,000  slaveholders,  many  of  them  church  members,  who  taking 


Fellowship  with  Slaveholders.  87 

the  advantage  of  a  bad  law,  are  continually  extorting,  wresting, 
twisting  out  the  sweat,  the  blood,  (and  in  thousands  of  instances,  the' 
very  lives)  of  nearly  4,000,000  human  beings,  that  they  may  live  on 
their  hard  earnings !  Are  such  fit  persons  to  be  fellowshiped  with 
as  members  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Who  can  bid  them  God  speed,  and 
not  be  partakers  of  their  evil  deeds  ? 

Again,  St.  John,  in  his  Second  Epistle,  says,  "  If  there  come  any 
unto  you  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your 
house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed ;  for  he  that  biddeth  him  God 
speed  is  a  partaker  of  his  evil  deeds."  These  words,  no  doubt,  pri 
marily  referred  to  our  Saviour.  But  by  amplification  or  implication, 
they  may  refer  to  what  our  Saviour  taught.  Now,  these  are  moral 
heresies,  as  well  as  theological  ones ;  and  if  Slaveholding,  the  holding 
and  the  using  of  a  human  being,  one  made  in  the  image  of  God,  is 
not  moral  heresy,  I  know  of  none — there  can  be  none. 

Dr.  A.  Clarke  says,  "  He  that  acts  towards  him  as  if  he  considered 
him  a  Christian  brother,  and  sound  in  .the  faith,  puts  it  into  his  power 
to  deceive  others  by  thus  apparently  accrediting  his  ministry "  or 
Christianity. 

And  further,  he  is  also  an  actual  partaker  with  him  in  his  evil 
deeds.  Like  Jehoshaphat,  "  he  helps  the  ungodly,  and  loves  them 
that  hate  the  Lord  ; "  and  as  sure  as  it  resulted  in  the  one  case,  it  will 
in  the  other,  "  therefore  is  wrath  upon  thee  from  before  the  Lord." 
"Have  no  fellowship  with  the  unfruitful  works  of  darkness,  but 
rather  reprove  them."  Those  who  fellowship  with  slaveholders, 
do,  in  effect,  fellowship  with  Slavery — do  really  give  it  a  better 
support  than  the  slaveholder  himself. 

.  I  verily  believe  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  can  no 
longer  be  idle  in  this  matter  of  Slavery,  and  be  innocent.  More  than 
thirty  years  ago  we  spent  the  whole  of  the  real  anti-slavery  capital 
which  our  venerated  fathers  had  left  us.  And  at  present,  notwith 
standing  our  ever  and  anon  repetition  of  anti-slaveryism,  the  ten 
dency  and  influence  of  our  Church  is  for  Slavery,  for  its  quiet, 
peaceful  continuance  in  the  Church,  under  present  circumstances. 
Why,  the  veriest  traders  in  the  souls  and  bodies  of  men  can  desire 
nothing  more  than  this.  To  let  them  alone  is  just  what  they 
want — what  the  devil  wanted  in  our  Saviour's  time,  when  they  were 
in  full  possession.  "Let  us  alone,  what  have  we  to  do  with  Thee?" 

Our  Church  should  cease  to  countenance  or  tolerate  any  longer 
this  enormous  evil.  She  should  cease  to  hold  fellowship  with  those 
Churches  in  the  South,  on  the  border,  or  in  any  country  which  will 
not  obey  the  laws  of  Christ.  Until  at  least  they  shall  have  enforced 
upon  their  own  communicants,  the  observance  of  what  Christ  re 
quired  ;  the  practice  of  the  most  common,  self-evident  principles  of 
justice  between  man  and  man ;  the  recognition  of  Christian  mar 
riage;  the  keeping  of  the  holy  Sabbath;  the  privilege  of  reading 
God's  word,  together  with  the  right  of  suit  and  testimony  to  all  their 
members,  so  that  the  integrity  and  moral  purity  of  our  common 
Christianity  may  be  maintained.  Those  who  do  not  observe  these 


88  Fellowship  with  Slaveholders. 

laws  of  Christ,  are  not  "  Constitutional  Methodists."  They  are  "  not 
of  us  ;"  and  if  every  slaveholder  on  the  border  should  go  out  from 
us,  the  Church  would  gain  immensely  by  their  absence. 

But  who  are  they  who  are  thus  "  troubling  our  Israel  ? "  Rev.  A.  J. 
Phelps,  at  Indianapolis,  calculated  them  at  a  minority  of  1  to  700. 
"  But,"  he  said,  it  seems  "  this  inferior  minority  must  be  sustained 
at  any  expense.  The  moral  force  of  the  whole  Church  must  defend 
oppressors.  Church  authorities  and  Church  papers  must  apologize 
for  the  nefarious  villainy.  The  press  must  be  muzzled,  and  every 
expedient  seized  upon  to  hold  the  700  in  check,  and  to  give  the  1 
the  ascendancy." 

As  we  have  already  said,  remove  the  extraneous  supports  from 
Slavery,  and  it  falls  to  the  ground.  All  history  confirms  this  state 
ment.  When  the  French  Revolution  took  away  the  army  and  navy 
from  St.  Domingo,  Slavery  fell  at  once  in  that  beautiful  island. 
"When  the  Peninsular  War  in  Europe  required  the  concentration  of 
all  the  Spanish  forces,  for  the  defence  of  the  mother  country,  almost 
immediately  society  reverted  again  to  its  natural  form  in  Mexico  ; 
and  consequently,  in  that  country  about  50,000  negro  and  2,000,000 
Indian  slaves  obtained  their  liberty.  The  same  event  took  place  in 
most  of  the  South  American  states.  The  British  navy  for  a  long 
while  upheld  Slavery  in  the  West  Indies,  by  continually  crushing 
the  frequent  risings  of  the  slaves,  who,  but  for  this  naval  power, 
would  have  soon  rid  themselves  of  their  effeminate  and  luxurious 
masters.  And  in  our  own  country,  it  is  the  various  influences  at  the 
North,  which  at  this  day  sustains  Slavery  in  the  southern  states. 

The  North  indirectly  hold  the  slaves ;  while  the  South  directly 
use  them,  and  live  upon  their  earnings.  And  as  soon  as  the  views 
and  sympathies  of  the  former  are  corrected,  both  politically,  eccle 
siastically,  socially  and  commercially,  this  curse  and  blight  of  our 
country  will  cease  in  the  latter ;  but  never,  until  then,  unless  it 
ceases  by  a  civil  war. 

History  cannot  furnish  an  instance  of  an  entire  slaveholding  coun 
try  unconnected  with  any  one  that  was  free,  which  ever  perpetuated 
Slavery  within  itself,  for  any  considerable  length  of  time.  The  thing 
is  impossible ;  for  in  a  state  of  slavery,  all  the  elements  of  a  good 
government,  such  as  confidence,  integrity,  and  mutual  interest,  are 
entirely  wanting.  In  1814,  how  easily  the  British  took  the  city  of 
Washington,  our  slaveholding  capital !  And  how  easily,  too,  they 
could  have  retained  it,  and  subdued  all  the  southern  states,  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  fear  of  northern  soldiers.  Could  such  a  small  arma 
ment  as  this,  at  any  time,  have  penetrated  so  far  into  any  other  state 
of  the  Union,  than  a  slaveholding  one?  Yes,  it  is  the  North  which 
continues  Slavery  ;  and  it  is  heart-sickening  to  estimate  at  what  an 
expense.  O  !  it  is  lamentable  to  contemplate  the  thousands  of  lives, 
and  the  millions  of  treasure,  which  are  every  year  swallowed  up  in 
this  infernal  maelstrom,  for  the  support  of  Slavery ! 

Now,  as  this  scourge  of  our  race  cannot  sustain  itself,  but  is  de 
pendant  for  its  continuance  on  exterior  support,  it  becomes  every 


Fellowship  with  Slaveholders.  89 

one  who  fears  God,  and  regards  the  good  of  his  fellow  being,  to 
examine  narrowly  what  assistance  he  may  ~be  giving  to  it.  And  for 
this  support,  whether  it  be  direct  or  indirect,  every  individual  is 
answerable  to  God ;  for  every  one  who  allows  himself  to  be  a  vehicle 
for  the  transmission  of  this  evil  to  the  next  generation,  sins  not  only 
against  God  and  his  own  soul,  but  against  posterity.  He  transmits 
to  unborn  millions  an  accumulating  curse,  and  necessarily  leaves  the 
world  worse  than  he  found  it. 

And  here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  slaveholding,  w^e  bring  in  that 
great  efficient  reformatory  principle,  individual  responsibility.  Let 
no  one  wait  until  the  State  or  the  Church  moves  in  this  matter.  God 
holds  every  one  accountable,  not  through  the  Church,  the  State,  or 
the  community  in  general,  but  directly  and  immediately  to  himself. 
This  individual  responsibility  was  the  leading  idea  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion,  and  soon  shook  the  power  of  Papacy  throughout  Europe.  And 
this  individual  responsibility  must  be  the  efficient  principle  in  every 
reformation.  There  can  be  no  thorough  and  lasting  reform  without  it. 

In  the  anti-slavery  enterprise,  ingenuity  has  exhausted  itself  in 
planning  devices  to  destroy  the  impulsive  efforts  of  this  reformatory 
principle.  The  figments  of  "expediency,  circumstances,  organic 
sins,*'  and  various  other  incomprehensible  mystifications,  have  labor 
ed  long  and  hard  to  change  the  issue,  to  transfer  the  blame  from  the 
individuals  to  some  impersonality,  or  to  quiet  the  conscience,  by  at 
tempting  to  prove  that  individuals  could  do  nothing  in  this  matter. 
These  anodynes  have,  for  years,  stupified  or  paralyzed  the  moral 
sensibilities  of  the  Church  and  nation ;  but,  thank  God,  their  influ 
ence  is  passing  away ;  the  spirit  of  slumber  is  giving  place  to  that 
of  vigilance  and  activity.  The  public  conscience  is  waking  up  for 
a  movement,  in  despite  of  all  these  sophisms,  and  the  minister  or 
the  politician  who  will  place  himself  in  the  breach,  to  arrest  its 
progress  will  be  prostrated  by  it  as  by  a  whirlwind. 

As  a  Christian,  let  him  withdraw  fellowship  from  all  those  who 
are  slaveholders ;  by  not  communing  with  them,  nor  hearing  their 
ministers  preach,  nor  inviting  slaveholders  into  our  pulpits. 

But  the  most  common  pretext  for  holding  fellowship  with  slave 
holders,  is  that  there  are  some  good  Christians  among  them.  So 
there  may  be  many  among  the  Romanists  who  go  weekly  to  the  con 
fessional  and  bow  before  the  crucifix ;  but  this  is  no  reason  that  we 
should  hold  religious  fellowship  with  them,  and  endorse  their  spu 
rious  creed  and  idolatrous  worship.  Abolitionists  do  not  sit  in  judg 
ment  on  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  slaveholders.  They  believe  that 
Slaveholding  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  that  which  is  forbidden  in 
the  word  of  God  ;  that  it  is  outward  visible  evidence  of  the  existence 
of  covetousness,  extortion,  and  other  concomitant  sins  in  those  who 
practice  it,  and  consequently  that  with  such  Christians  they  should 
not  eat.  But  in  regard  to  the  heart  they  do  not  judge;  God  only 
searches  it  and  knows  it.  They  cannot  pronounce  in  reference  to  it, 
nor  concerning  the  invincibility  of  prejudices,  nor  the  want  of  informa 
tion  which  may  be  with  the  slaveholder.  Whether  guilty  or  inno- 

7 


90  Fellowship  with  Slaveholders. 

cent,  he  has  put  himself  in  a  wrong  position  ;  in  a  position  in  which 
he  gives  his  name,  his  influence,  and  the  whole  weight  of  his  moral 
and  religious  character,  to  the  support  of  that  entire  system  which 
the  close-thinking  and  far-seeing  John  Wesley  called  emphatically 
"  the  sum  of  all  villanies." 

And  in  his  case,  the  better  the  man  the  worse  is  the  deed.  The 
more  moral  worth  he  has,  in  the  estimation  of  the  world,  the  better 
support  he  can  give  to  Slavery  ;  and  consequently  they  who  sustain 
him  in  his  wrong  position,  sustain  the  position  itself,  with  all  its  con 
comitant  sins. 

We  would  say,  in  the  next  place,  to  every  man  as  a  citizen  :  with 
draw  your  support  from  Slavery,  by  refusing  to  vote  for  any  man 
who  is  a  slaveholder,  or  for  any  other  man  that  upholds  Slavery.  In 
this  way  every  voter  can  most  effectively  reach  the  very  strongholds 
of  Slavery  in  our  country.  And  we  conceive  it  to  be  every  man's 
duty  to  do  it.  Every  consideration  arising  from  the  past  and  pres 
ent,  urges  him  to  do  it ;  his  duty  to  his  God,  to  humanity,  to  his 
country,  and  to  the  unborn  millions  who  are  to  come  after  him,  call 
upon  him  to  exercise  the  power  now  in  his  hands,  to  arrest  the  con 
tinuance  and  progress  of  this  scourge  of  the  human  race.  It  was  a 
maxim  among  the  ancients,  that  he  who  had  it  in  his  power  to  save 
life  and  did  not  do  it  was  himself  guilty  of  murder. 

Let  none  suppose  that  individual  efforts  can  do  no  good.  The 
preaching  of  a  few  Galilean  fishermen  overthrew  the  religion  of  the 
pagan  world.  During  the  last  twelve  or  fifteen  years,  much  light 
has  been  diffused.  It  is  now  collecting,  and  will  soon  shine  forth  to 
•destroy  this  foul  lump  of  deformity  with  the  brightness  of  its  coming. 
At  the  creation,  light  was  created*and  existed  some  days  before  it 
was  collected  and  shone  out.  Public  sentiment  is  in  a  state  of  tran 
sition.  It  is  coming  around  right.  Many  who  were  once  violently 
opposed  to  anti-slavery  measures,  have  already  become  their  warm 
and  active  friends.  And  very  many  others  who  imagine  that  they 
still  retain  their  former  opinions  and  practices,  are  in  reality  advanc 
ing  with  almost  railroad  speed  to  the  full  standard  of  abolition  or 
thodoxy.  Like  the  passenger  in  the  car,  they  imagine  that  every 
thing  is  moving  and  coming  to  them,  while  in  truth  they  are  rapidly 
.going  forward  themselves. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


FUTURE     ACTION     OF    THE     CHURCH. 


UNDO  WHAT  HAS  BEEN  DONE  UNCONSTITUTIONALLY — REPEAL  THE  CHAPTER  ON 
SLAVERY — No  CHANGE  OF  THE  GENERAL  RULE  NECESSARY — THE  REQUISI 
TION  TO  EXCLUDE  SLAVERY  IS  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  OUR  CHURCH  ALREADY 

— GENERAL  CONFERENCE  SHOULD  RE-AFFIRM  THE  DECLARATION  OF  1780  — 
GIVE  A  JUDICIAL  DECISION  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  MEANING  OF  THE  RULE  —  PRO 
HIBIT  THE  OBSERVANCE  OF  THE  UNWRITTEN  LAWS  OF  SLAVERY  IN  THE 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  CHURCH — ALLOW  TO  EVERY  MEMBER  THE  RIGHT 
OF  SUIT — RIGHT  OF  TESTIMONY — RECOGNITION  OF  MARRIAGE — To  REQUIRE 
ALL  MEMBERS,  BOND  OR  FREE,  TO  OBSERVE  THE  LAWS  OF  CHRISTIANITY, 

WHETHER    IN    ACCORDANCE    WITH    THE    SLAVE    LAWS    OR    NOT. 


BUT  ROW,  in  conclusion,  what  is  to  be  done  ?  No  one  should  find 
fault  who  is  unable  to  point  out  a  better  way.  It  was  esteemed  a 
Roman  virtue  never  to  despair  of  the  Republic.  Great  evils  have 
been  suffered  to  come  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  yet  we 
do  not  despair.  No  Church,  from  first  to  last,  has  done  more 
for  the  colored  man  in  North  America  than  ours  has  done.  The 
evils,  however,  of  which  we  have  spoken,  will  never  cure  them 
selves  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  if  not  arrested,  they  will  go  on  increas 
ing  until  they  ruin  all  connected  with  them.  The  crisis  must 
be  met.  By  a  series  of  concessions  our  Church  is  put  in  a  false  po 
sition.  Although  constitutionally  anti-slaveiy  or  abolitionist,  her 
present  bearing  and  influence  are  almost  altogether  on  the  other 
side.  The  slaveholding  and  extreme  conservative  portion  of  the 
Church,  at  present,  will  not  move  in  the  matter,  for  they  are  con 
tented  with  our  present  ecclesiastical  attitude.  They  have  the  pos 
session,  and  they  can  desire  no  more.  If  anything  is  done  to  change 
our  present  position  and  influence,  it  must  be  done  by  those  who  are 
opposed  to  Slavery.  Now  we  say  that  our  Church  must  be  brought 
back  to  the  true  foundation,  to  the  anti-slavery  basis  on  which  she 
was  originally  founded,  ^g^^, 

In  the  accomplishment  of  this  object,  we  have  only  to  pursue  a 
plain,  obvious  course ;  no  theories,  no  experiments,  no  transcendent 
alism.  All  that  is  necessary,  is  simply  to  undo  that  which  has  been 
unconstitutionally  done.  Our  position  is,  that  in  her  constitution, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  anti-slavery  or  abolitionist.  This 
constitutes  our  entire  creed  on  this  subject.  From  this  belief  all 
our  measures  should  emanate ;  this  conviction  should  animate  our 
hope,  as  it  will  clothe  our  words  and  doings  with  authority.  And 


92  Future  Action  of  the  Church. 

this  belief,  that  Slavery  is  a  sin,  must  influence  our  plans,  regulate 
our  fellowship,  and  direct  us  in  the  selection  of  all  general  church 
officers.  In  this  discrimination  we  injure  no  one;  we  invade  no 
rights ;  we  disfranchise  no  real  member  of  the  Church.  We  em 
brace  all  within  the  constitutional  pale,  as  brethren  beloved,  equally 
entitled  to  a  community  of  rights  and  privileges. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  next  general  conference  should  separate 
our  Church  wholly  from  all  connection  with  Slavery,  and  present 
her  before  Christendom  in  her  true  and  real  anti-slavery  character. 
And  for  this  purpose  she  should,  in  the  first  place,  repeal  and  re 
move  forever  from  the  discipline  the  entire  chapter  on  Slavery.  It 
legalizes  Slavery  in  the  membership.  It  is  a  dishonor  to  our  Church 
where  it  now  stands.  Slavery  cannot  properly  be  the  subject  of 
law,  for  it  is  in  itself  essentially  the  abrogation  of  all  law. 

Secondly,  it  is  not  necessary  to  change  the  general  rule  on  Slavery. 
There  is  really  no  need  of  it.*  It  is  sufficiently  anti-slavery  or 
abolitionist  as  it  now  stands ;  only  execute  it.  For, — 

1.  The  requisition  of  the  Scriptures,  "To  give  that  which  is  just 
and  equal,"  that  is,  an  honest  and  adequate  compensation  to  ser 
vants,  and  to  all  other  persons,  for  services  rendered,  and  for  value 
received,  is  already  in  the  moral  constitution  of  our  Church.     And 
it  is  there  stronger  and  more  authoritatively  than  any  ecclesiastical 
enactment  of  the  general  conference  could  possibly  make  it.     For 
the  observance  of  the  most  obvious  duties  of  justice  and  honesty, 
we  need  no  special  rule.     We  might  as  well  have  one  against  gam 
bling,  and  another  against  robbery.     The  carrying  out  the  above 
divine  requisition  is  only  carrying  out  the  essential  and  indispensa 
ble  principles  of  our  Christianity ;  the  very  abnegation  of  which 
would  unmake  Christianity  itself.     It  would  subvert  the  entire  basis 
of  our  holy  religion.     But,  says  the  South,  "  that  would  make  the 
slave  a  free  man."    So  it  would,  and  that  is  what  we  want,  and  con 
sequently  there  is  no  need  for  a  change  of  the  rule  to  accomplish  it. 

2.  But  further,  it  would  be  wholly  unnecessary,  even  ecclesiasti 
cally,  for  it  would  be  a  mere  actum  agere — the  doing  of  that  which 
is  already  done.     For  our  rule  on  Slavery  as  it  now  stands,  consid 
ered  either  grammatically,  morally,  or  historically,  prohibits  all 
enslaving,  without  any  regard  whatever  to  inheritance  or  circum 
stances.     And  what  more  could  a  special  enactment  or  an  amend 
ment  do  ? 

3.  The  attempt  to  change  our  constitutional  law  on  this  subject 
would  be  making  a  false  concession.     It  would  be  conceding  that 
our  Church  is  now,  and  always  has  been,  constitutionally  a  slave- 
holding  one.     And  that  the  vigorous  efforts  which  her  founders  put 
forth,  during  the  first  thirty  years  of  her  existence,  to  root  out 
Slavery,  stem  and  stalk,  from  her  border,  were  nothing  more  than  an 
unmeaning  ado.     And  that  her  subsequent  and  continuous  calls, 
through  the  ten  thousand  disciplines  which  she  is  sending  out  every 
year,  have  ever  been,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  palpable  contradic 
tion,  or  something  which  looks  too  much  like  hypocrisy. 

*  See  Addenda. 


future  Action  of  the  Church.  93 

And  finally,  an  attempt  to  change  our  organic  law,  in  the  present 
state  of  matters,  would  be  wholly  useless.  For  the  same  captious- 
ness  which  construes  the  present  rule  as  legalizing  Slavery,  would 
equally  misconstrue  the  meaning  of  the  restrictive  rule  itself,  when 
its  object  was  to  abolish  Slavery.  This  is  not  theoretic.  For  already 
Southern  construction  to  the  rule  has  been  given  to  this  effect.  The 
restrictive  rule  requires  for  the  change  of  any  one  of  the  general 
rules,  a  vote  of  "  three  fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  an 
nual  conferences."  Now  the  construction  referred  to  is  this  :  "  the 
three  fourths  of  the  members  of  several  annual  conferences  does  not 
mean,"  say  they,  "  three  fourths  of  all  the  members  in  the  aggre 
gate,  but  three  fourths  of  the  members  of  each  and  every  annual 
conference  separately  and  singly." 

Thus,  should  4,000  traveling  preachers,  out  of  the  4,788,  which 
constitute  the  whole  body,  vote  to  change  the  rule,  any  one  of 
the  forty  conferences — say,  for  illustration,  the  Arkansas  conference 
of  26  members  gives  but  17  votes,  out  of  her  26,  for  a  change — then 
again,  for  the  want  of  the  one  vote  in  this  conference,  the  judgment 
and  the  will  of  the  thousands  in  the  other  conferences  would  be  set 
aside,  and  the  entire  Church  would  be  wedded  indissolubly  to  Sla 
very  forever. 

Yet  if,  for  the  sake  of  form,  or  to  meet  the  views  of  objecting 
brethren,  or  to  cut  off  the  very  possibility  of  litigation  in  civil  law, 
the  conferences,  in  their  wisdom,  should  go  through  the  process 
of  removing  the  restriction  to  change  the  rule,  let  it  be  done 
with  the  understanding  that  the  process  was  for  something  like  the 
above  reasons,  and  not  because  they  believed  that  we  had  been 
constitutionally  a  slaveholding  Church. 

And  now,  thirdly.  Having  repealed  the  chapter  on  Slavery,  and 
having  left  the  general  rule  on  it  untouched,  the  next  general  con 
ference  should — 

Re-affirm  the  declaration  of  sentiment  which  was  known  and 
acknowledged  by  the  whole  Church  at  the  time  she  was  founded, 
viz.: — that  Slavery  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature; 
hurtful  to  society ;  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  pure 
religion,  and  the  doing  that  which  we  would  not  that  others  should 
do  to  us  and  ours.  And  that  we  do  still  hold  in  the  deepest  abhor 
rence  the  PRACTICE  of  Slavery,  and  shall  not  cease  to  seek  its  de 
struction  by  all  wise  and  prudent  means. 

As  the  general  conference  is  a  judicial,  as  well  as  a  legislative 
body,  let  it  in  its  judiciary  capacity  give  an  exposition  or  an  authori 
tative  decision  in  reference  to  the  rule  on  Slavery.  They  can  do 
this  with  great  propriety;  for  the  rule  was  not  one  of  their  own 
making,  and  they  are  the  highest  judiciary  in  our  Church  to  whom, 
consequently,  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  law  must  come.  They 
might,  at  least,  according  to  our  views,  affirm  something  like  the 
following : 

1.  "  That  the  buying  and  selling  of  men,  women  and  children  with 
the  intention  to  enslave  them,"  was  never  intended,  and  never  should 


94:  Future  Action  of  the  CJiurcJi\ 

be  so  construed  as  to  set  aside  the  requirements  of  justice  and  equity 
which  are  contained  in  God's  written  word ;  which  word,  the  Church 
receives  as  the  only  rule,  and  the  sufficient  rule  both  of  faith  and 
practice.  That  the  above  rule  was  never  meant  to  release  any  of 
our  members,  or  any  other  person  from  the  moral  obligation  to  give 
that  which  is  just  and  equal,  a  full,  fair  equivalent,  wages,  or  com 
pensation  for  work  done  or  value  received,  to  every  child  of  man,, 
wholly  irrespective  of  his  color,  country  or  condition.* 

3.  That  every  good  and  acceptable  member  in  our  Church,  with 
out  regard  to  color  and  condition,  shall  have  the  right,  according  to 
Matthew  xviii,  6,  15-18,  of  private  expostulation;  for  the  redress 
of  grievance ;  and  that  in  case  this  fail,  he  shall  be  allowed  an  eccle 
siastical  suit,  according  to  the  discipline. 

4.  That  the  testimony  of  every  person,  without  regard  to  color  or 
condition,  who  is  accredited  for  veracity,  shall  be  received  in  all  our 
ecclesiastical  courts. 

5.  That  there  shall  *be  no  distinction  in  the  administration  of  the 
law  of  marriage,  between  those  members  who  are  bond  and  those 
who  are  free. 

6.  That  no  person  who  is  a  Sabbath-breaker,  or  who  is  in  any 
other  way  a  violator  of  other  laws  of  Christianity,  shall  be  continued 
in  the  Church ;  and  that  in  all  those  cases  in  which  our  members  are 
coerced  by  ungodly  masters,  or  by  unscriptural  laws  to  do  so,  that 
they  be  taught  in  those  cases  to  obey  God  rather  than  man,  and  to 
endure  the  consequences  as  did  the  primitive  Christians ;  and  that 

*  Although  the  general  conference  has  no  right  to  change  the  words,  or  to  alter 
the  sense  of  the  general  rules,  yet  in  cases  of  disagreement  in  the  construction 
of  them,  in  its  judicial  capacity  it  has  a  right,  and  for  the  sake  of  peace,  in  many 
cases,  it  ought  to  give  an  authoritative  decision  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the 
law.  For, — 1.  Everyone  does  this  for  himself  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures.  2. 
The  general  conference  did  this  in  effect  when  it  required  baptism  and  a  confes-t 
sion  of  faith  as  tests  of  membership.  3.  These  rules  are  general,  and  certainly 
the  highest  judiciary  in  the  Church  should  have  the  right  to  direct  their  applica 
tion  and  to  expound  their  meaning. 

For  instance,  we  have  a  rule  against  "buying  and  selling  goods  which  have 
not  paid  the  duty."  Now  suppose  one,  or  ten  thousand,  of  our  members*  should, 
by  inheritance  or  otherwise,  get  thousands  of  such  uncustomed  goods  into  their 
possession  for  their  own  use ;  and  suppose,  in  bar  of  the  general  rule,  they  should 
plead  that  the  receiving,  holding  and  using  of  such  goods,  were  not  buying  or 
selling  them,  and  that  it  was  only  the  latter  that  the  rule  prohibited.  In  this 
case,  and  it  is  a  perfect  parallel  to  the  one  on  Slavery,  would  not  the  general  con 
ference  have  a  right,  and  should  they  not  exercise  it  to  decide  something  like 
this.  That  the  object  and  design  of  the  rule  was  to  prevent  any  one  from  cheat 
ing  the  government,  and  that  the  receiving,  holding  and  using  of  such  goods  are 
clearly  within  the  prohibition ;  that  they  abhorred  the  practice  of  cheating  the 
government,  and  that  it  must  be  immediately  discontinued.  Who  in  this  case 
would  think  that  the  conference  had  transcended  its  constitutional  bounds  ?  Or 
that,  to  prevent  the  members  of  the  Church  from  defrauding  the  government, 
that  it  would  be  necessary  to  change  the  whole  constitution  of  the  Church,  and 
to  alter  the  general  rules  so  as  to  make  it  read,  "the  buying,  selling,  holding  or 
using  goods  that  have  not  paid  the  duty."  Now  we  do  most  religiously  think 
that  the  cases  are  parallel,  and  there  is  just  as  much  necessity  to  change  the 
general  rules  in  regard  to  smuggling,  as  there  is  in  regard  to  slaveholding. 


Future  Action  of  the  Church.  95 

the  entire  Church  sympathise  with  them  in  their  sufferings,  and  that 
the  said  Church  shall  use  all  the  means  in  her  power  to  obtain  re 
dress  for  these  sufferings;  and  to  secure  for  them  and  all  other  Chris 
tians  in  slaveholding  states,  the  unrestricted  liberty  of  conscience, 
and  the  right  of  public  worship. 

Finally,  that  according  to  the  requirement  of  our  Church  in 
1787,  "that  the  whole  Methodist  discipline  be  exercised  among 
them,"  the  slaves  and  the  people  of  color,  as  it  is  among  other  mem 
bers.  This,  then,  is  all  that  we  need ;  and  all  this  the  Church  of  our 
choice  must  have.  This  in  itself  is  amply  sufficient  for  the  entire 
abolition  of  Slavery ;  for  we  can  have  no  better  abolition  book  than 
the  bible,  and  no  better  plan  for  the  emancipation  of  Slavery,  than 
the  enforcement  of  Christian  discipline. 


ADDENDA. 

Since  writing  the  above,  it  has  been  suggested  that  it  would  be  better  to  pass 
through  the  Disciplinary  process  by  changing  the  general  rule  on  Slavery.  Al 
though  we  do  not  believe  that  this  is  really  necessary  •  for  we  are  fully  of  the 
opinion,  that  the  simple  execution  of  Christian  Church  discipline,  would  effectu 
ally  extirpate  Slavery ;  yet  we  do  not  object  to  this  process,  if  it  be  passed  through 
pro  forma,  with  the  understanding  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  not 
now,  and  never  has  been  constitutionally  slaveholding. 

This  constitutional  difficulty  is  really  an  "  after  thought.''  Our  fathers  never 
thought  of  it.  The  same  rule  was  in  the  discipline  at  least  in  1789,  and  while  they 
were  making  every  effort  to  "extirpate  this  abomination,"  they  never  appear  to  have 
imagined  that  they  were  infringing  on  any  constitutional  law  in  driving  Slavery 
out  of  the  Church.  Ev«n  the  delegated  conference  of  1812,  w^hen  they  "  author 
ized  each  annual  conference  to  form  their  own  regulations  relative  to  buying  and 
selling  slaves,"  seem  never  to  have  thought  that  they  were  violating  the  constitu 
tion,  or  that  it  was  necessary  to  send  the  above  around  to  the  annual  conferences 
for  their  concurrence.  In  fact,  "the  constitutional  bar"  is  a  new  doctrine, 
sprung  up  about  twenty-eight  years  ago  by  some  of  our  chief  ministers,  on  the 
present  agitation  of  the  slave  question.  Yet,  for  the  sake  of  form,  this  process 
may  be  passed  through. 

1.  It  may  be  well  to  accede  to  the  views  of  those  who  think  that  the  constitu 
tional  process  is  necessary. 

2.  It  may  simplify  the  whole  matter  by  removing  at  once  every  issue  of  a 
doubtful  character,  and  by  keeping  the  main  question  fully  in  view.     And 

3.  As  there  is  ample  time  to  send  the  recommendation  to  the  several  annual 
conferences,  it  will  afford  opportunity  to  comply  with  the  requisition  of  the  gen 
eral  conference  of  1796,  who,  among  other  matters,  enjoined  the  following:  "  The 
preachers  and  other  members  of  our  society  are  requested  to  consider  the  subject 
of  negro  Slavery  with  deep  attention,  till  the  ensuing  general  conference :  and 
that  they  may  impart  to  the  general  conference,  through  the  medium  of  the  yearly 
conferences,  or  otherwise,  any  important  thoughts  upon  this  subject,  that  the 
conference  may  have  full  light,  in  order  to  take  further  steps  towards  the  eradi 
cating  this  enormous  evil  from  that  part  of  the  Church  of  God  to  wrhich  they  are 
united."— His.  Dis.  p.  276. 

4.  And  lastly,  in  case  of  secession  or  of  any  appeal  to  courts,  the  process  may 
be  well  by  cutting  off  the  plea  of  unconstitutionally.     For,  from  the  Supreme 
Court  of  our  country,  as  it  is  unhappily  constituted,  this  plea  may  be  fairly  antici 
pated.     For  at  present,  and  for  many  years  past,  a  majority  of  the  judges  have 
been  slaveholders,  and  their  proclivities  have  been  already  sufficiently  manifested 
in  their  decisions  between  the  M.  E.  Church  and  the  M.  E.  Church  South.     So 
that  pro  forma,  and  for  the  above  reasons,  it  may  be,  perhaps,  best  to  have  the 
general  rule  changed ;  but  always,  however,  with  the  understanding,  that  we 
never  admit  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  now.  or  ever  has  been  con 
stitutionally  slaveholding. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


mm-^nr***^     m^mmm     •• 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

?r<3tt*fS$£Jh 

•"  *  '  ^&v  •            i 

riasHH 

F  (N) 

J 

i 

'      '       ^QfllZr-    m&f 

"•'•    2&      -i 

||CD 

4 

L&£3Stt£           u-SSggK«-. 

YB  06628 


-4. 


389232 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRAE  i 


